Hello David, thank you for your fast response!
You probably have heard of the Debian guidelines about free software (DFSG), they try to define most clearly the frontier between free and non-free software. In real life, things are not either black or white: black and white are united by a continuous series of grey tones. The "desert island test" is one of the touchstones we use to decide whether something is free or non-free. Here is a simple version of this test: please imagine that you live in a desert island, and that you got the software X, possibly enclosed in a floating bottle. Then you examine the software, and the license says that you must communicate with its author to be authorized to use this software (for any usage which is possible in the case of free software: running it, reading its source, modifying it). If the license compells you to communicate with the author, it is no more DFSG-free. You license still contains one phrase which does not pass this test: "If you're considering making a derived work other than a translation, it's requested that you discuss your plans with the current maintainer." The words "it's requested" are compelling. Hence this tutorial falls into the category of non-DFSG-free documents. Please consider some rewording, for example: s/it's requested that you/you are strongly encouraged to/ For how many people would the modified version of the licence change their behavior? I believe that there are plenty of people who do not take serously the licenses: those won't read your license, either in its compelling form or in its milder form. However which such a rewording, your license would definitely belong to the category of FDSG-free documents. Timo, Berndt, what is your mind about this? Best regards, Georges. Kicad a écrit : > Hi, > > I have deleted the offending line from the current version of the > document, which was updated this year. Does this resolve the issue? > > You can find copies of the modified document here: > http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.pdf > http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.odt > > Kind Regards, > David > > On 15/06/2011 7:24 AM, Georges Khaznadar wrote: > >Hi, > > > >thank you for your fast reply Timo. Let us wait some time for David's > >response. > > > >Best regards, Georges. > > > >Timo Juhani Lindfors a écrit : > >>Hi, > >> > >>Georges Khaznadar<georges.khazna...@free.fr> writes: > >>>is it possible to have a single source package, giving two output packages > >>>in different sections like main and non-free? > >>> > >>>my idea is that it is not allowed, > >>this is not possible indeed since non-free stuff is not ok in the source > >>package either. > >> > >>>so I should withdraw the conflicting > >>>file from kicad's source, to build a package kicad-X.XX+dfsg, and upload > >>>a package kicad-tutorial to the NEW queue. > >>Sounds possible. I would rather see the license fixed though. I already > >>started updating the tutorial with screenshots from a more recent kicad > >>before I noticed the first page banner. > >> > >>-Timo > >> > -- Georges KHAZNADAR et Jocelyne FOURNIER 22 rue des mouettes, 59240 Dunkerque France. Téléphone +33 (0)3 28 29 17 70
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature