On Sunday, 8 January 2006 02:28, Lauri Watts wrote: > On Saturday 07 January 2006 13:39, Lauri Watts wrote: > > On Saturday 07 January 2006 11:31, Brad Hards wrote: > > > On Thursday 05 January 2006 19:47 pm, Isaac Clerencia wrote: > > > > 2) Convince manual authors to a) relicense their works under the GPL, > > > > or b) double-license them under both the GFDL and GPL. > > I have some questions: > 1: Would Debian accept something like the BSD documentation license (with > or without the copyright notice requirements) as an alternative dual > license to the GPL? Yes, that license is acceptable by Debian.
> 2: Would Debian accept an exception clause along the lines of the Qt > license exception clause, excising the objectionable parts of the FDL? Well, I guess it would be enough, although I'm not sure about it. I will ask debian-legal at lists.debian.org about it. > 3: Specifically are there any other licenses I didn't mention (and which > versions of those licenses) that are acceptable to Debian as either > 3a: The sole license on a document, or > 3b: A dual license along with FDL as we use it today. After having a look at debian-legal at lists.debian.org archives it looks like there are three documentation licenses considered "free" by Debian just now: a) The FreeBSD documentation license that you asked about in 1) b) The Linux Documentation Project License v 2.0: http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html c) Sun's documentation license (used by OpenOffice.org): http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/pdl.pdf Best regards and thank you :) -- Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es Work: <isaac at warp.es> | Debian: <isaac at debian.org> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-doc-english/attachments/20060108/01b4a5cb/attachment.sig
