Bug#207699: marked as done (Licence conflict within Securing Debian Manual)
Your message dated Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:58:32 +0200
with message-id <20030828235832.GA14654@dat.etsit.upm.es>
and subject line Bug#207699: Licence conflict within Securing Debian Manual
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Aug 2003 21:16:22 +0000
>From rick@linuxmafia.com Thu Aug 28 16:16:15 2003
Return-path: <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Received: from linuxmafia.com [198.144.195.186]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19sTsy-0004tp-00; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:00:52 -0500
Received: from rick by linuxmafia.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19sTtA-0000HY-00
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:01:04 -0700
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:01:04 -0700
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Licence conflict within Securing Debian Manual
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20030828210104.GC12038@linuxmafia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-18.5 required=4.0
tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,HAS_PACKAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
SIGNATURE_LONG_SPARSE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
autolearn=ham version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: www.debian.org
Version: 2.95 (june 2003)
Severity: serious
The Securing Debian Manual is GPLv2 overall, but contains a third-party
GFDL inclusion, resulting in licence conflict. Ideal remedy, if
possible, would be if the inclusion's author (Alexandre Ratti) were
willing to dual-license (or grant a licence exception on) that work.
My use of "Severity: serious" derives from my attempt to interpret Debian
Policy section 12.5 (Copyright information):
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
and distribution license...
I figure a problematic copyright notice / distribution licence doesn't
substantively satisfy that "must" directive. If I erred, and this bug
should be "Severity: normal", my apologies.
----- Forwarded message from Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> -----
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:52:27 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
To: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Licence oddity in Securing Debian Manual (was: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL)
X-Mailing-List: <debian-legal@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/15210
[Rick, apologies for the CC if you are subscribed to this list.]
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
> Debian Manual at
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ has in its
> front material the following:
[...]
> Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> under the terms of the GNU Public License, Version 2 or any later
> version published by the Free Software Foundation. It is distributed in
> the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY.
>
> All well and good, so far. Appendix H of the Manual, in
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ap-chroot-apache-env.en.html
> , has:
>
> This document is copyright 2002 Alexandre Ratti. It has been released
> under the GNU-FDL 1.2 (GNU Free Documentation Licence) and is included in
> this manual with his explicit permission.
>
> Doesn't that create a licence conflict?
Yes. Even RMS does not posit that the GNU GPL and the GNU FDL are
compatible licenses. They are not miscible in a single work except by a
party with copyright on the complete corpus. That's obviously not the
case here.
Please file a bug against www.debian.org, and feel free to quote this
message.
--
G. Branden Robinson | As people do better, they start
Debian GNU/Linux | voting like Republicans -- unless
branden@debian.org | they have too much education and
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | vote Democratic. -- Karl Rove
----- End forwarded message -----
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 207699-close) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Aug 2003 01:52:32 +0000
>From jfs@dat.etsit.upm.es Thu Aug 28 20:52:27 2003
Return-path: <jfs@dat.etsit.upm.es>
Received: from dat.etsit.upm.es [138.100.17.73]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19sWev-00012U-00; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:58:33 -0500
Received: (qmail 14699 invoked by uid 1013); 28 Aug 2003 23:58:32 -0000
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:58:32 +0200
From: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= <jfs@computer.org>
To: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>, 207699-close@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#207699: Licence conflict within Securing Debian Manual
Message-ID: <20030828235832.GA14654@dat.etsit.upm.es>
References: <[🔎] 20030828210104.GC12038@linuxmafia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20030828210104.GC12038@linuxmafia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: 207699-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.6 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_20,IN_REP_TO,PGP_SIGNATURE_2,REFERENCES,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
--bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have removed that appendix from the manual and will add it back as soon=
=20
as (if) Alexandre dual licenses that document with GFDL/GPL.
Thanks for noticing this problem
Javi
--bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/TpcosandgtyBSwkRAkLCAJ0cyy5bS90i6oe6sSVw8GJdngja9ACfYEVZ
rCm9B8v+lmh07pQOEpLgbR0=
=H2C6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5--
Reply to: