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

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:45:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I strongly object to this unless you're willing to mark the very
> section[1] you describe as motivating your proposal as "_very_ draft".
> I say this because it is *not* representative of current consensus on
> debian-legal.

Notice that, as described in the footnotes, this section covers the 
consensus of debian-legal as of december 2002. Pointers to current 
"consensus" would be good.

> 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
> Sections or Cover Texts.

Please could you point to the thread which discusses this? (Aj's summary 
[1] on the GFDL seems to say that GFDL documents can be DFSG-free)

> 2) The OPL does not satisfy the DFSG even if neither of the license
> options are exercised.

Ok. Pointers again?

> Moreover the position you currently summarize is inconsistent; it says
> required cover texts are are okay if it's the OPL that requires them,
> but not if it's the GNU FDL that requires them.

Patches are most welcome to update the content in the DDP Policy, it has
been the _only_ documment summarising debian-legal posts since I started it
back in December. Debian users or developers cannot be expected to read all
the threads going on in debian-legal so it would be to the interest of all
of us if DD (like you) which are deeply involved in -legal would update
the document when the status changes (a new documentation license gets
accepted, or an old one gets revisited). Feel free to update the CVS 
sources at will, or send patches to -doc.

That being said, the current draft for the DDP policy has not gone through
a formal process (yet). I intented it to be included along other Debian
documents at http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp marking it as a draft in
progress (and that's what I was asking at -doc), but giving it, at the same
time, more exposure to the DD and free software community. And, eventually,
announce it at -devel to discuss it further (when the current draft
sections had been ironed out). 



PS: However, you have rushed this, by opening this up to -devel and -legal. 


Attachment: pgp6HKHSxAweC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: