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

Debian Free Documentation Guidelines was: License of old GNU Emacs manual

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:24:56AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:43:15PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > 
> > [ redacted because it pointlessly appeared on debian-private ]
> > 
> (Permission to forward my text below to any one/list that people might
> choose is hereby given.)
> We have a choice before us.  Either we are super-strict about what
> goes into the main debian pool, in which case more and more stuff will
> end up in non-free (and people will take non-free less seriously), or
> we become pragmatists, and bend the DFSG, or make the DFSG more
> accomodating, in which case it could be argued that we will be taking
> the DFSG more seriously.


Or we can take what is behind Door number 3!

We wrote the Debian /Free Software/ Guidelines, there isn't anything
stopping us from creating the Debian /Free Documentation/ Guidelines.

I don't believe that Documentation is similiar enough to Software that
we can blindly apply the DFSG.  But let us see what the consensus is; if
there is one the DFDG will be exactly equivalent to the DFSG (it'd be a
surprise though).

As some first thoughts, can we agree that:
	- may be treated as software
	any Documentation which is explicitly under a Software licence 
	that we have already determined to be DFSG okay is likewise DFDG 

	- free redistribution
	no restrictions on who can redistribute. no royalties or fees

	- availability of 'preferred editing form'
	If AsciiDoc, then the source should be available so that once
	the US (or the rest of the world) switches to A4 (or Letter)
	things can be appropriately regenerated for the new paper size.
	(for example).

	- no discrimination
	No discrimination against specific people or groups of people.
	Or people who labour in a specific field or type of

	- licence is not specific to Debian
	The same licence should apply whether or not the documenation is
	part of Debian.
There are many more contentious points that we ought to be able to
enumerate as we did in while creating the DFSG.  I shall try to post a
summary, frequently, of guidelines raised to keep discussion progressing[1].


[1]: If you'd like to help with that, please let me know.

linux.conf.au 2005   -  http://lca2005.linux.org.au/  -  Birthplace of Tux
April 18th to 23rd   -  http://lca2005.linux.org.au/  -       LINUX
Canberra, Australia  -  http://lca2005.linux.org.au/  -    Get bitten!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: