Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:03:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > The policy decision's at http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt:
> > > ] Code in main and contrib must meet the DFSG, both in .debs and
> > > ] in the source (including the .orig.tar.gz)
> > > ]
> > > ] Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable,
> > > ] and wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This
> > > ] will likely become a requirement post-sarge.
> > Huh ? Does this mean that we can move the ocaml-docs package to main
> > again ? 
> 
> If it's GFDLed, or under a similar license, you can -- it's maintainer's

Ah, i don't believe so. The copyright says : 

    * Any translation or derivative work of the Objective Caml documentation
      and user's manual must be approved by the authors in writing before
      distribution.

I believe this is way more restrictive and non-free than the GFDL,
altough it would be the same as the GFDL with invariant sections, isn't
it ? 
		
Friendly,

Sven Luther