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

Re: DRAFT: d-d-a mail about removing non-free documentation

Current version can be found at

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:32:01AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org> wrote:
> > Since one of our release goals for etch is to remove any non-DFSG-free
> > documentation from main here some comments from the release team on
> 1. Wishlist: non-DFSG-free seems odd and invites the "DFSG aren't DFDG"
> response. Maybe "documentation which doesn't follow DFSG" or "non-main".
> Same applies elsewhere "non-free documentation" is used.

Hmm, not sure about that one. Seems like a lot of changes for little
more clarification.

> [...]
> >    My current plan is to do 1) a grep run over all debian/copyright files
> >    and search for known non-free licenses and then 2) do the same with
> 2. Normal: s/known/common/ - it is possible (although rare) that someone
> has granted enough exceptions to change the total licence.


> [...]
> >    Known non-free documentation licenses are:
> >     - GFDL
> >     - CC licenses
> 3. Wishlist: CC licences up to version 2.5 (we have hopes for 3)


> [...]
> >  If the affected documentation is closely related to a piece of software
> >  (and probably packaged with it), e.g. a man page for a executable binary
> >  or a reference manual for a library, try ask upstream to relicense it
> >  (or at least dual-license it) under the same terms as the software
> >  itself. This is probably a good idea in any case...
> 4. Wishlist: finish this: because it allows easier copying of material
> back-and-forth between the source code and documentation. 


> [...]
> >  So here the new way: After filing a bug about non-free documentation
> >  please add a usertag "nonfree-doc" and one usertag that describes the
> >  license, like "gfdl", "cc", "opl" for the common licenses or something more
> >  descriptive like "non-commercial" or "unmodifiable" for custom licenses.
> 5. Wishlist: use gfdl-1.2, cc-2.5, ... as applicable. We may yet get
> improvements.

Hmm, I don't know if we win anything by doing this. Either the license
if free, then we can close the bug, or it is non-free, in this case we
don't win anything by knowing the version, do we?

Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Reply to: