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

Re: DRAFT: d-d-a mail about removing non-free documentation

Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.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

Reply to: