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

Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

> Hello debian-legal,
> I'm forwarding, with permission, parts of a message from Kern Sibbald,
> author of Bacula and its manual.  The current manual, which has a
> license listed at http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html, is not
> DFSG-free.  However, Kern has indicated a willingness to consider other
> license arrangements.
> Kern's main concern (correct me if I'm wrong, Kern) is that he doesn't
> want someone to be able to publish and sell paper versions of the
> manual.

Yes, this is correct, but with the nuance, that I would be very happy to
see the manual published in physical form provided there is an agreement
for a reasonable financial contribution to the project, which should take
into account normal royalties and how much work the publisher (or whoever
transforms it) has to do to get it in a publishable form.

In my other email, I attempt to explain my reasoning behind this.

> Is it possible to get a license that would be both DFSG-free and meet
> Kern's requirements?  Would the FDL work in some fashion (given our
> recent GR on the subject?)
> Please CC Kern on replies since he's not on debian-legal.
> Thanks,
> -- John
> ----- Forwarded message from Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> -----
> From: Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com>
> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:41:36 +0200 (CEST)
> To: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
> Subject: Re: Bacula Documentation License (& Debian Package Update)
>> The first is a question about the license for the Bacula documentation.
>> Sometime, probably when it switched to being its own package, it gained
>> that license notice on the front page, and thus apparently changed from
>> falling under the GPL to that license.
> Well, in the beginning, there was no license for the manual. It was simply
> copyrighted. I imagine that people assumed that it was under the GPL, but
> it wasn´t or wasn´t meant to be under the GPL.
>> I would like to be able to include the current documentation in Debian.
>> Unfortunately, the new license isn't compatible with the Debian Free
>> Software Guidelines -- see
>> http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
>> Specifically, the problems that I see are:
>>   #1 (Free Redistribution), since copying/selling is restricted
> Yes, selling is restricted without permission.  Copying is not restricted,
> provided it is for your own use, or for release with Bacula.  I´m not sure
> I want to change this as I would be a bit annoyed if someone took the
> manual, published it and then began to sell it.  This is really something
> different from selling software because there is no transformation of the
> software, whereas printing a manual, binding it, ... is quite different,
> and at least at the moment, if that happens (and I would really like to
> see someone do it), I feel the project should receive a certain royalty as
> is the case with any author.  I may change how I feel about it in the
> future, but that is my general idea at the moment.
> If the Debian idea is that the manual must be totally free for anyone to
> take and use in any way, yes, then I agree, there is a problem. Other than
> that, I really see no problem distributing it with the Bacula source code
> and for any company to ¨publish¨ it internally.
>>   #6 (discrimination against fields of eneavor), since commercial users
>>   have different requirements
> I´m not sure exactly what that means. I´m not discriminating against
> anyone. My rules apply to anyone. The idea is just to retain certain
> rights as an author.
>> As an author myself, I can understand why you went with that license.  I
>> wonder if you might consider relicensing the documentation.  Putting it
>> back under the GPL may be a good way to achieve your goals.
> I think putting it under GPL would allow anyone to publish it in physical
> form without my permission, which is what I would like to avoid (at least
> for the moment).
>> Alternatively, by a special resolution, Debian has made an exception for
>> works under the GNU Free Documentation License.  They are considered
>> free as long as they don't include any specially-marked (per the
>> license) Invariant Sections, Cover Text, Acknowledgements, or
>> Dedications (or that permission to remove them is granted).  Details can
>> be found at http://www.us.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- scroll down
>> to "Amendment Text A", which is what actually passed.
> I am on vacation now, so I cannot take a look at this at the moment.
> However, from what I remember when I read it some time ago, this only
> permits me to ensure that the manual or perhaps the title page is not
> changed.  I really don´t care if it is changed as long as it doesn´t lead
> to confusion about what Bacula is, and providing any commercial release of
> the manual is done with a reasonable contribution to the project.
>> I would be happy to work with you to help you find a license that
>> achieves your goals and is free enough to go into Debian.  With your
>> permission, I'd CC debian-legal@lists.debian.org on that discussion, as
>> there are many people there with more experience in this area than I.
> Yes, I am happy to work with anyone and have no problem with you
> forwarding this email. One small point to keep in mind: I am currently on
> vacation, and am answering from a cybercafé with a bunch of noisy boys
> playing games around me, so I cannot concentrate very well and so what I
> wrote above could potentially be clarified or even corrected. :-)
>   [ snip ]
> Thanks, and sorry if my message is a bit fuzzy (young game players) ...
> Best regards, Kern
> ----- End forwarded message -----

Best regards, Kern

Reply to: