[I am not stably subscribed to debian-* yet; please CC: me.]
[This is not really debian-devel issue yet. So removed from Reply-To:]
Thanks Branden for reminding us about important insights to the licensing
issues as below. We have at least 2 separate issues with Javi's mail.
1) Javi's assessment of ddp-policy document status
2) Contents of ddp-policy document
> # Subject: Let's remove the 'draft' from the DDP Policy
> # From: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena <jfs@computer.org>
> # To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org
> # Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:55:11 +0200
>
> > Since no one has spoken against the documentation which I presented as a
> > draft DDP Policy I was thinking if it would be useful to publish this at
> > the website since the questions about license+documentation seems to
> > came up often. Anyone against it?
This is not true. Adam stated against and I concurred. Adam was supposed
to update its content with much narrower scope contents so this document
becomes acceptable as a policy document. He is slow doing it but that
does not make it right for Javi to state above statement.
Besides, the contents such as:
* 3.5.3 Files installed by the Debian package (Option1)
* 3.5.4 Files installed by the Debian package (Option2)
exist, too. These 2 options are there because THIS is DRAFT. Proposed
policy must have only one of the two.
Did Adam indicated he stopped doing rewrite of ddp-policy? Did I miss
something? (Sorry for my long absense from debian-doc@l.d.o)
> > We can still keep the draft status in the webpages but it would give it
> > a wider audience to it. Also, I would appreciate any help from fello doc
> > maintainers to polish the sections which are in a _very_ draft mode.
> >
> > More info:
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/
>
> 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.
>
> To wit:
>
> 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
> Sections or Cover Texts.
>
> 2) The OPL does not satisfy the DFSG even if neither of the license
> options are exercised.
>
> 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.
>
> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html#s2.2
Very interesting insight.
I can not speak for Adam but, IMHO, these section are good as a part of
appendix. For policy document, we should simply
* require document to be DSFG Free
* recommend to use GPL
So if this section survive as a part of policy document, please update
this accordingly.
> --
> G. Branden Robinson | You are not angry with people when
> Debian GNU/Linux | you laugh at them. Humor teaches
> branden@debian.org | them tolerance.
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- W. Somerset Maugham
Cheers.
Osamu
Attachment:
pgpIGp6Oi_8Xx.pgp
Description: PGP signature