On Friday 06 November 2009 11:28:53 John Hasler wrote: > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. writes: > > In addition, debian-legal has other issues with the GNU FDL and > > recommends against its use. > > It's a wonky license, but absent "invariant sections" or "cover texts" > it is DFSG-compliant. I seem to remember issues about "opaque" vs. "transparent" forms of distributions being really poorly defined, but is why there were some recommendations against it. I hoped I was clear that the license, as long as you don't use the "invariant sections" or "cover texts" parts, was DFSG-free -- just not a good license for other reasons. It's not worth the effort required to change licenses if you are using the GNU FDL and would have to locate contributors, but you probably shouldn't use the license for new documentation that you are wanting to get into Debian. It would be better to match the license the software it documents, as long as your are clear on how the terms in the licenses apply to your work (of documentation). > > At the very least, this allows examples to be put in the documentation > > that are based on (or copied directly from) the source code. > > That would be fair use and so legal no matter what the licenses. We'll have to agree to disagree here; I don't believe there's legal precedent for your statement or the contrary. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.