On Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 01:11:55AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
> [examples deleted]
> > I really think documentation is not ready for the DFSG.
> Or the DFSG is not ready for documentation, license agreements, ..
] The Debian Free Software Guidelines
]
] 1. Free Redistribution
Check.
] 2. Source Code
] The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
] in source code as well as compiled form.
This one's occassionally iffy -- someone brought up a couple of cases
where the docs were obviously pregenerated from SGML or similar, but
the source wasn't included, so local generation of .ps files for the
right sized paper was a pain. Or something similar.
I don't think most authors would have a problem with this restriction,
though.
] 3. Derived Works
] The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
] allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
] of the original software.
This is one that's usually denied in name, but IMHO (and IANAL), not
really denied in practice.
I don't see any reason why you couldn't produce, say, ``The aj Public
License'', which was largely based on the GPL, but changed, say, the
requirements for acknowledging that the program was ajPL based at
runtime.
Which brings us to...
] 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
] The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
] modified form _only if the license allows the distribution of
] "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
] the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit
] distribution of software built from modified source code. The
] license may require derived works to carry a different name or
] version number from the original software. (This is a compromise.
] The Debian group encourages all authors to not restrict any files,
] source or binary, from being modified.)
In particular the part about "The licesne may require derived works to
carry a different name..."
So if it's modified from the standard, you're no longer claiming to be
distributing the "Standard for Frobbing Doohickeys", but something
like "The Poorly Annotated Standard for Frobbed Doohickeys" or something
similar.
] 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
Check.
] 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Check.
] 7. Distribution of License
Check.
] 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
Check.
] 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
Check.
] 10. Example Licenses
] The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses
] that we consider "free".
It would be useful to include some documentation copyrights/licenses
here as well, though.
Personally, I don't see what's so onerous about allowing others to
base new documentation off your work, especially if you're allowed
to require them to acknowledge you as their source, and to require
them to call their work something different.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting some of the requirements above, though?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``It's not a vision, or a fear. It's just a thought.''
Attachment:
pgpsk95F8lNEy.pgp
Description: PGP signature