Re: Worked around (dirty...) How to apply no-debianized kernel patch to debianized kernel-source?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:31:03AM -0400, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 01:53:40AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Sounds like the GFDL. You might want to have a look at debian-legal
> > archives on this topic; there are unfortunately various concerns about
> > its freeness as far as Debian's definition of the term is concerned. :-/
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00132.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00243.html
> The summary seems to be that it's not a problem as long as there are no
> invariant sections. Since I have no intentions of making any part of the
> document invariant, I think this is a fine license for my needs.
Unfortunately I'm not sure that the links you quote above represent a
general consensus in Debian. In particular, several people have
expressed the serious concern that the text in section 2 of the GFDL
forbidding the use of "technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" has the
effect of forbidding the installation of GFDLed documents on encrypted
filesystems, such as the USB memory stick on which I keep various useful
things like my GPG key.
I'm aware I'm coming across as a pain here; I'm really just passing it
on. Due to issues like the above, as the maintainer of the Debian
doc-linux packages I'm likely to come under substantial pressure soon to
relegate all LDP documents licensed under the GFDL to non-free, and I'd
like to keep the number of affected documents as small as possible.
However, I'll stop here and not say anything more unless there are
specific questions; I think I've put forward my point as best I can and
your licensing decisions are as always yours alone.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: