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

Re: Bug#316487: debian-installer-manual: Missing copyright credit: Karsten M. Self for section C.4

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 16:34:54 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:

> >   - I would prefer attribution to excision.
> Being DFSG-free is a prerequisite for being in Debian, but being DFSG-
> free does not compel Debian to include a work.  Your preferences don't
> make excision of a work unacceptable.

Wait one second...
Of course excision is possible, but is it really a good idea?
I don't think so.

Karsten's document seems to be valuable: DIG writers chose to derive a
section from it.
And it's GPL-compatible: Karsten's license seems to be, but anyway
Karsten himself states he's willing to relicense the document under the
actual GPL, if it's considered necessary.

Given the above mentioned facts, I don't think we should drop his
copyrighted material, just because he asks what he deserves: credit for
what he wrote.

> >   - Denying contributors proper credit reflects poorly on the Debian
> >     Project and discourages future contributions to Debian
> >     documentation by third parties, a contribution by which the
> >     Project would benefit greatly.
> If your work is excised, then there is no contribution which is being
> denied attribution.

Obviously, but why do you want to reinvent the wheel?
Free program development should be based on code reuse whenever it's
The same applies to free manual development.

> It's saying "please offer contributions under
> the same license as the rest of the work", which is a legitimate,
> useful, and common thing to require.

This is legitimate, but Karsten is willing to offer his work under the
same license as the DIG, so I don't see a reason to drop his

> The reasons you have cited are reasons why *you* don't want your work
> excised, not reasons why it is unacceptable for Debian to do so.  I
> don't know how you can confuse the two.
> The fact that you're trying to coerce a maintainer to include a work
> instead of attempting to address his reasons for doing so, is enough
> for me to agree with Joey's decision.

AFAICT, Karsten is not trying to coerce anyone.
Actually, Karsten did *not* contribute anything.

He wrote a document and published it under a strange license.
*Then* some DIG writers found that document and decided (without any
coercion) to write a DIG section as a derivative of it.
But they failed to comply with its (really permissive) license.
Karsten is just asking that they comply with his license and publish the
DIG with an appropriate copyright notice. 
He's even willing to relicense his document, if there are doubts about
the GPL-compatibility of his strange license.

IMHO the best solution is

 * Karsten relicense (or dual-license) his document under the GPL
 * DIG maintainers simply add a name in the copyright holder list

Think about it: Karsten wrote a valuable document and is offering it
under the GPL; in these times of non-free documentation everywhere, how
can you ask more from him?

    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpDMk_oVHfNB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: