Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Anyway I don't care about this. These are O'Reilly's problems.
Aren't they every free documentation user's problem? It seems unwise to me
to encourage users to modify and/or republish or redistribute something
covered by an unclear license by accepting it into Debian.
After all, in the worst case, O'Reilly could win a lawsuit against someone
because O'Reilly successfully argued somebody's republishing did not include
enough material from enough alternate sources. This would be rather
chilling for people who are looking for books they can improve and
> Woody is coming and I don't want to miss the package for a long long
> long legal disquisition.
Shouldn't free software and free documentation policy resolution come before
practical considerations like missing the next Woody?
But to answer your point more directly, how much of this would go away if
Debian's free documentation policy were the same terms as the GNU FDL? It
seems to me if Debian chooses to reinvent the wheel of free documentation
considerations they are poised to make another mistake along the lines as
not adopting FSF's definition of free software.