Re: DRAFT: d-d-a mail about removing non-free documentation
Frank Lichtenheld <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Since one of our release goals for etch is to remove any non-DFSG-free
> documentation from main here some comments from the release team on
1. Wishlist: non-DFSG-free seems odd and invites the "DFSG aren't DFDG"
response. Maybe "documentation which doesn't follow DFSG" or "non-main".
Same applies elsewhere "non-free documentation" is used.
> My current plan is to do 1) a grep run over all debian/copyright files
> and search for known non-free licenses and then 2) do the same with
2. Normal: s/known/common/ - it is possible (although rare) that someone
has granted enough exceptions to change the total licence.
> Known non-free documentation licenses are:
> - GFDL
> - CC licenses
3. Wishlist: CC licences up to version 2.5 (we have hopes for 3)
> If the affected documentation is closely related to a piece of software
> (and probably packaged with it), e.g. a man page for a executable binary
> or a reference manual for a library, try ask upstream to relicense it
> (or at least dual-license it) under the same terms as the software
> itself. This is probably a good idea in any case...
4. Wishlist: finish this: because it allows easier copying of material
back-and-forth between the source code and documentation.
> So here the new way: After filing a bug about non-free documentation
> please add a usertag "nonfree-doc" and one usertag that describes the
> license, like "gfdl", "cc", "opl" for the common licenses or something more
> descriptive like "non-commercial" or "unmodifiable" for custom licenses.
5. Wishlist: use gfdl-1.2, cc-2.5, ... as applicable. We may yet get
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct