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
>> 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
>> into account normal royalties and how much work the publisher (or
>> 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).
OK, I understand.
> 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.
Well, I didn't really feel "accused" of being discriminatory, in the sense
that I didn't take it personally. However unless I am mistaken, one of the
two original points brought to my attention by John was that the license
was discriminatory, or probably more correctly stated, my license violates
one of the antidiscrimination tests of the DFSG. I was not trying to argue
the point, just clarify from my point of view the "degree" of violation of
> 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.
Yes, I agree with the above.
Again, my point in commenting on it was only to point out the "degree" or
"extent" of the violation (at least as I see it). I'm just trying to
provide information and clarification so that you ("Debian") will
understand what I would like to accomplish. Then you will be able to make
any decision necessary in an informed manner.
Best regards, Kern