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). Regards Javi PS: However, you have rushed this, by opening this up to -devel and -legal. Thanks. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html
Attachment:
pgpE1al6K8zd7.pgp
Description: PGP signature