Re: Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:47 +1000]:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > II. Transparent And Opaque Copies
> > Section 3 (Copying in Quantity) of the GFDL states that it is not
> > enough to just put a transparent copy of a document alongside with the
> > opaque version when you are distributing it (which is all that you
> > need to do for sources under the GPL, for example).
> The way we distribute source and binaries doesn't meet this requirement;
> so allowing this seems like it implies a pretty serious change to
> how we manage source, one way or another. The way things works at the
> moment, we'd have to interpret that as a prohibition (for our purposes)
> on distributing "compiled" GFDL docs, which presumably would (for our
> purposes) violate the "must allow distribution in ... compiled form"
> requirement of the DFSG.
Well, this assuming that distributing the source in the same directory
as the "compiled" form does not satisfy the gfdl's "along with" (I'm
sure some -legal person will be able to teach me proper English); but
if this is the case, I don't understand why the same distribution
method does magically not infringe the license terms if the section is
"non-free" as oppsed to "main" ('cause stuff in non-free has to be at
least legally distributable by us).
IOW, why does this matter for main and not for non-free?
(And if determined that it's not okay, then one can go with the "or
state in or with each Opaque copy a [...] location [...] to download
[...] protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document" clause.
I'd say a maintainer is taking "take reasonably prudent steps" if they
include in debian/copyright (1) the upstream url, (2) the url for
ftp.d.o:/pool/sourcepkg, (3) an url for archive.d.o, (4) an url for
snapshot.d.n.)
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Ana Belén - Puerto viejo
Reply to: