Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion of Samuel (grabbing sentences from the ocaml manual licence) OK or not to have it in main?No, it is not. In order to be in main the license should also permit modification of the doc.
Yes, sorry for the confusion. I gave the example of the OCaml manual's license because it looked like the "easiest" solution because you wouldn't have to change anything (i.e. distribute the sources, allow modifications, etc.) to the current way the doc is distributed. But it would *not* be free (and thus would have to go in non-free).
Clearly if you're willing to put the documentation under a free licence (GPL or BSD for example), it would be the best.
GFDL is ok, but only for the next release, so I suggest not to use it.
Ah? I thought the consensus was more like GFDL is not acceptable for Debian, maily because of the reasons explained in [1] but I might have missed something.
Regards, Samuel. [1] http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml