Re: GFDL 1.1

[Andrew Donnellan <ajdlinux@gmail.com>]

Hi Dimitrij,

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:49 AM,  <dmitrij.ledkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Software in question: GnomeSword
> Software licence: GPL v2 or (at your option) any later
>
> The documentation (Gnome Help file) is covered by GFDL 1.1 with no
> invariant sections and a disclaimer.[1]
>
> I want to clarify that it still qualifies for the staying in Main. I've
> googled a lot about
> Debian and GFDL 1.2 but I'm a bit confused if the Debian resolution applies
> to GFDL 1.1 as well.
>
> It also puzzles me that
> GFDL 1.1 is not present in /usr/share/common-licenses/
> And the proposed copyright format doesn't have GFDL-1.1 tag either (only
> v1.2)
>
> I'm member of the Crosswire packaging team and we are working on the new
> upsream
> release and hoping to get it into Jaunty and upload to Debian after Lenny
> (due to dependencies).
>
> Please help me to understand if this software with this documentation is
> DFSG
> compliant.
>
> [1] This is legal notice of the help file.
>
> Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under
> the
> terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), Version 1.1 or any later
> version published by the Free Software Foundation with no Invariant
> Sections, no
> Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  You can find a copy of the GFDL
> at
> this link or in the file COPYING-DOCS distributed with this manual.
>

As you can see it says 'Version 1.1 or any later version', so it can
be used under GFDL 1.2 as well. So that should be fine.

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Donnellan <><               andrew[at]donnellan[dot]name
http://andrew.donnellan.name          ajdlinux[at]gmail[dot]com
http://linux.org.au            hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
---------------------------------------------------------------
"the govt should be paying the tax"
                                 - A friend of mine, 02/11/2008