(first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO) I'm curious, why the heck is not debian-doc consulted (or CCed) whenever debian-legal starts discussing documentation licenses. It could be nice, if only to ask for opinions of the DDP project. I have read the start of the thread [1] after reading the (not-yet-published) latest DWN, and I'm starting to think we are having a "fix problems with a hammer" issue (you know, the saying "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail"). You see, the DFSG is just that: the Debian Free _Software_ Guidelines. Why on earth are we comparing documentation licenses with a _software_ licenses' guideline? It makes no sense. It is my opinion that Debian should produce the Debian Free _Documentation_ Guidelines which need not be related to the current DFSG (but could use some tips from it, obviously). I am willing to produce such a draft but _only_ if people stop throwing the DFSG against document writers. It does _not_ apply, we need to write a new set of guidelines. Regards Javi PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when you are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's opinions in an article) PPS: Btw the argument by Walter Landry on the GFDL not be DFSG-free because of : "(...) The GFDL doesn't allow this, which counts as a use restriction. (...)" [2] is moot since there is nothing about that "use restriction" in the DFSG. Clause 5/6 talk about "no discriminitaion" agains persons or fields of endeavor. Obfuscated code, for example, might make it difficult to use a program in a given environment but it's not restriciting it per license. Obfuscated code can be DFSG-free [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00285.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00287.html
Attachment:
pgpfry41pRYRf.pgp
Description: PGP signature