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

Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> 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.

While this is an understandable viewpoint, and one that I can sympathize
with, any license that would provide protection such as you describe
would most definitely be in violation of the DFSG, and as such, not
distributable by debian, at least in the main section (though possibly
in non-free).

I also wanted to clear something up. When you said "I consider this a
really minor point that has virtually a zero probability of
discriminating against someone." (in your other mail), I took it to mean
that you felt Debian was accusing you of being discriminatory. While
that it one test of the  DFSG, it is not the only one. Even though the
documentation's license is not discriminatory, it violates other core
principles of the DFSG, those of allowing the user to sell the work, and
to change the form it is in.
> Best regards, Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: