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

Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
>  Q: Why are the DFSG applied to documentation? There should be some "Debian
> Free Documentation Guidelines" (DFDG) to be applied to documents instead of
> the DFSG.
>  A: See the previous question. Even if it doesn't convince you or you can
> live with the ambiguity described there, the existence of different DFSG and
> DFDG would mean that there are some freedoms that are necessary for programs
> but are irrelevant for documents, and vice versa, as will be exemplified in
> the following questions.

I've written this four times in the past week, so it belongs in a
FAQ. Something along these lines should be included:

If you want to propose an alternate set of guidelines for some subset
of the works in Debian, here's what you need to do:

 - Write them. Most people never manage this part.

 - For each license restriction permitted by your new guidelines that
   isn't permitted by the DFSG, answer the following three questions:

     1) How do we distinguish between packages where it should and
        should not be allowed?

     2) Why should it be allowed in for these packages?

     3) Why should it not be allowed in for every other package?

   Note that the answers to (2) and (3) should not involve special
   pleading or otherwise be contradictory. "Because it's
   documentation" is not a valid answer, and the answer to (3) should
   not apply to the packages in question.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: