[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org> wrote:
> (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.

debian-legal is where "Copyright, licensing and patent issues" are
discussed.  The GFDL is a license, so it is natural to discuss it
there, where people are interested and versed in interpreting

> 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").

There are many, many more discussions than that.

> 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.

You are not the first to make such a claim.  It has been discussed ad
nauseam.  Feel free to read the archives (it may take a while) to
understand why some people disagree with you.

> 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.

That would, in effect, alter the founding documents of Debian.  Feel
free to propose a GR.

> 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

The point in that post was that the GFDL was making it impossible, not
just difficult, to use in particular ways.

Walter Landry

Reply to: