Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
> "Invariant Sections" either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
> Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free.
   ^

Hrm.  DFSG-*non*free, that is.  :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Damnit, we're all going to die;
Debian GNU/Linux   |let's die doing something *useful*!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Hal Clement, on comments that
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |   space exploration is dangerous


pgpDwMcQp1qKh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Jamie Wilkinson]

This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
>that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
>
>I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
>the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
>license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
>inforced by the author...

So you have never checked your packages to make sure that the code within is
all above board and licensed under the license it says it is?

When a particular instance of a license can be considered free by our
standards, why should we place a blanket rejection on all possible
permutations of that license?  We, as developers, should be able to
recognise the difference between a document with and without invariant
sections, and identify the documentation as non-free or free respectively
under our current set of guidelines.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg
 
The Tao that is seen
Is not the true Tao - until
You bring fresh toner.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lun 08/04/2002 à 19:12, Dale Scheetz a écrit :

> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain
> clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free.

> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...

So, you mean that the license allows that, after being modified, the
document can become non-free.

Using the same logic, the BSD license is non-free too.

-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Alan Shutko]

Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...
>
> The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Selective
> editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist.

No, that's not the case.  Any options are chosen by the author at the
time of licensing the work.  It's not a matter of enforcement, it's a
matter of choosing what variant of the license to use on a specific
piece of documentation.

This may mean that piece of documentation using the FDL with certain
options may not be free, and that a piece of documentation using the
FDL with different options may be free.  Think of the FDL as a
meta-license, and specific instances as used in packages as the real
license.

-- 
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
Art is the tree of life.  Science is the tree of death.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
> that can be used, and will be considered non-free.

It is software that is or is not DFSG-free, not licenses.

The simple fact is, a work licensed under version 1.1 of the GNU FDL
with no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections is clearly and plainly
DFSG-free.

A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
"Invariant Sections" either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free.

You can call the GNU FDL "free" or "non-free" due to either or both of
the above.  Which you decide is far less important to Debian than how
the GNU FDL is actually applied to works in real life.

> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...

I find it ... surprising that you're unfamiliar with the issues
surrounding the Artistic License and its "reasonable" copying fee.

Actually, since you usually opine on issues before educating yourself on
them, I'm not surprised.  :)

> The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't.

Under that logic, the GNU GPL is non-free because it is not a modifiable
document.

Debian, however, takes a pragmatic approach to license documents; we
care about licenses only insofar as they apply to actual software that
we package.  We also care about licenses as they are enforced by the
copyright holder, not about how they could have been exercised by the
copyright holder.

That said, Debian does occasionally serve to act in an advisory capacity
to people seeking to adopt license terms that express their desires
clearly.

> Selective editing creates a new license that may or may not actually
> exist.

*shrug*  Then your beef is with the people who author such licenses.
The GNU FDL and OPL both have optional parts that the copyright holder
can elect not to exercise.

For that matter, the GNU GPL does too.  You can always add a rider to
the license, for instance by permitting your work to link against an old
version of the Qt library.

> If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the -legal mailing
> list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such nonsense.

If this is the kind of "logic" you're going to try to bring to -legal,
perhaps the list is better off without your participation.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux   |above, but it is too long to fit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpazrOtgynxb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Craig Dickson]

begin  Dale Scheetz  quotation:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 
> > As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
> > 
> > Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
> > 
> > In a nutshell:
> > 
> > 1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if
> > there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections.  Note that your
> > license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover
> > Texts and Invariant Sections.
> > 
> > 2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially
> > DFSG-free when none of the "license options" are exercised.
> 
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
> that can be used, and will be considered non-free.

No. Specific optional aspects of the licenses, which are required by the
licenses themselves to be declared in the license notice contained in
the covered document, are non-free. The licenses can be used to make
documents DFSG-free, and I believe DFSG/OPL documents are essentially
DFSG-free by default, since the conflicts arise only when these options
are explicitly invoked by the copyright holder in the license notice.

> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...

Let's try this again, as you seem to have misunderstood what Branden
wrote.

If a document is covered by GFDL and contains no Cover Texts or
Invariant Sections, then that document is, according to Branden,
uncontroversially DFSG-free. (I say "according to Branden" because I
don't read debian-legal either, nor have I taken the time to check the
archives.)

If a document is covered by OPL, and the license notice does not declare
any non-DFSG-free options, then that document is, according to Branden,
uncontroversially DFSG-free.

This has nothing to do with "enforcing" license terms after the fact, so
your claim that "any proprietary license becomes free ... [if] not
[e]nforced by the author" is a complete non sequitur. It has, instead,
to do with how the license is applied to the document in the first
place. If a GFDL document has Cover Texts or Invariant Sections, those
sections must be explicitly identified by the copyright holder in the
document's license notice (I believe this is a requirement of the GFDL
itself). If no such sections are identified, then the document is fully
modifiable, and therefore DFSG-free.

Why you find this hard to understand is a bit of a mystery to me.

Craig


pgpI1NENdpLGL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Thomas Hood]

Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they
> contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered
> non-free.

Your objection is true of the OPL, but RMS argues
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00017.html
that that is not true of the GFDL because "The GFDL
says that invariant sections must cover only topics of how
the work relates to the authors or publishers."

> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF
> some clauses of the license are not exercised. Using this
> language, any proprietary license becomes free as long as
> none of the proprietary sections are inforced by the author...

These cases are not the same.  A license with unexercised
options is very different from a license with proprietary
clauses (which don't happen to be enforced).

Again, though: Even if the GFDL options are exercised the result
is not a non-free license, but a license reasonably similar to
other free licenses already endorsed Debian.

Although the GFDL differs from the GPL in the way it imposes
liberty-enhancing restrictions, the restrictions seem to me
to be neither excessive nor unclear nor especially vulnerable
to misuse.

> If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the
> -legal mailing list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such
> nonsense.

Let this be a recommendation to others to read the debate
that already took place on debian-devel.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg6.html

--
Thomas Hood





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >   3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
> >  that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
> >  non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.
> > 
> >   4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
> >  can make demands for "good" documentation.
> 
> As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
> 
> Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
> 
> In a nutshell:
> 
> 1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if
> there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections.  Note that your
> license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover
> Texts and Invariant Sections.
> 
> 2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially
> DFSG-free when none of the "license options" are exercised.

So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
that can be used, and will be considered non-free.

I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
inforced by the author...

The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Selective
editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist.

If this is the kind of logic that is being used on the -legal mailing
list, I'm glad not to expose myself to such nonsense.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_-   Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road  _-
_-   e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
  available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>   Well, since there are these other issues being raised
>  (specificcally, the concern that GFDL may not meet the DFSG [I happen
>  to disagree with that statement, for what that counts for]), we
>  should wait for the dust to settle down before moving things into an
>  area designated for common, free, licenses, don't you think?

Well, if you insist ;-)

Actually, on more reflection, (asside from whether or not the GNU Free
Documentation License is "Free") the whole purpose of the common license
area was to reduce the file space consumed by multiple copies of the same
license. Thus if two packages use the license it is cost effective to
place a copy into the common area.

With respect to the "freeness" of this license. It would be a real shame
for Debian to declare this a non-free license, as much of the GNU
documentation currently making the move to this license would have to go
into non-free...

Waiting is,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_-   Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road  _-
_-   e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
  available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Martin Quinson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into the common reference area?
> > 
> > Who should I talk to about this?
> 
> Please check #139437...

... and #79538 and #123074.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Martin Quinson]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> into the common reference area?
> 
> Who should I talk to about this?

Please check #139437...

Thanks, Mt.

-- 
Si les grands esprits se rencontrent, les petits esprits, eux, se cognent.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>   3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
>  that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
>  non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.
> 
>   4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
>  can make demands for "good" documentation.

As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.

Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.

In a nutshell:

1) The current version of the GNU FDL is uncontroversially DFSG-free if
there are no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections.  Note that your
license notice is supposed to indicate the presence or absence of Cover
Texts and Invariant Sections.

2) The Open Publication License (OPL), is also uncontroversially
DFSG-free when none of the "license options" are exercised.

Read the archives of debian-legal for supporting references.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|One man's theology is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux   |belly laugh.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpD6SM16B1ml.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Joseph Carter]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > > into the common reference area?
> > > 
> > > Who should I talk to about this?
> > 
> > Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory?
> 
> You clearly have an opinion on this issue ;-)
> 
> I suppose this stems from the "invarient section" clause in the GFDL?

I'm more concerned with the additional publisher requirements.  They have
been relaxed a little with 1.1 and reworded slightly in the draft for
1.2, but I feel it's still a problem.

I don't like the invariant sections much, but the draft of 1.2 seems to
resolve the major concerns I had.


> While this declaration is "broader" than the same feature in the GPL, I
> don't see the problem.
> 
> The GPL allows the license and the copyright statements to be both
> required, and invarient. The GFDL simply recognizes that documents often
> have historical, philosophical, or political statements that should, yes
> need, to be protected from modification. These sections, such as the
> history section of my book, writen by Ian M., deserve protection if truely
> "free speech" is to continue to be protected. The technical material can
> then be left "modifiable" as is needed and useful to such matherial.

History reads as ChangeLog in most programs and is not invariant, but
AFAIK it can be cut off at a certain point for brevity if you like.


> What would be a more suitable "Free Documentation License" in your view?

I would certainly be less eager to argue over the 1.2 version if the FDL
when it's released since it applies a sanity check to section 3 and
clarifies a little the named sections which may deserve special treatment.

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Have chainsaw will travel
 
 Overfiend - BTW, after we've discovered X takes all of 1.4 GIGS
   to build, are you willing admit that X is bloatware?  =>
 KB: there is a 16 1/2 minute gap in my answer
 knghtbrd: evidence exists that X is only the *2nd* worst windowing
  system ;)



pgpptnllsl6vb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Dale> On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
 Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
 Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area?

 >> Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use
 >> a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this
 >> license, then? 

 Dale> I can't answer any of your questions ;-)

Well, since there are these other issues being raised
 (specificcally, the concern that GFDL may not meet the DFSG [I happen
 to disagree with that statement, for what that counts for]), we
 should wait for the dust to settle down before moving things into an
 area designated for common, free, licenses, don't you think?

manoj
-- 
 "Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can*
 you believe?!"  Bullwinkle J. Moose
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into the common reference area?
> > 
> > Who should I talk to about this?
> 
> Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory?

You clearly have an opinion on this issue ;-)

I suppose this stems from the "invarient section" clause in the GFDL?

While this declaration is "broader" than the same feature in the GPL, I
don't see the problem.

The GPL allows the license and the copyright statements to be both
required, and invarient. The GFDL simply recognizes that documents often
have historical, philosophical, or political statements that should, yes
need, to be protected from modification. These sections, such as the
history section of my book, writen by Ian M., deserve protection if truely
"free speech" is to continue to be protected. The technical material can
then be left "modifiable" as is needed and useful to such matherial.

What would be a more suitable "Free Documentation License" in your view?

Waiting is,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_-   Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road  _-
_-   e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
  available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Dale Scheetz]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
>  Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
>  Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
>  Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area?
> 
>   Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use
>  a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this
>  license, then? 

I can't answer any of your questions ;-)

What I do know is:

  1. The GFDL is a published license of the FSF, intended for use by
 documentation.

  2. The documentation provided by gmp-4.0.1 is now GFDL. This indicates a
 move by GNU to use this license more broadly.

  3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
 that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
 non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.

  4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
 can make demands for "good" documentation.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux"  _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_-   Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road  _-
_-   e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-  Released under the GNU Free Documentation License   _-_-_-_-
  available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 05:06, Joseph Carter ha scritto:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into the common reference area?
> > 
> > Who should I talk to about this?
> 
> Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory?
but
because it seems a blatantly non-free _software_ license but maybe it is
a blatantly free _documentation_ license :)

-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Those who do not study Lisp are doomed to reimplement it. Poorly.
 -- from Karl M. Hegbloom .signature


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
 Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
 Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area?

Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of Debian packages use
 a license before it be deemed ``common''? How many packages use this
 license, then? 

manoj
-- 
 I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an
 exception. Groucho Marx
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Joseph Carter]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> into the common reference area?
> 
> Who should I talk to about this?

Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory?

-- 
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  glDisable (DX8_CRAP);
 
 cat /dev/random | perl ?
 doogie: it is also a valid sendmail.cf
 :)
* knghtbrd hands doogie a senseless-use-of-cat award
* shaleh wants to try it but is afraid



pgpLuubATWGzo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

[Richard Braakman]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> into the common reference area?

No, it would be premature.  There's a draft for a new version up for
review at the FSF site.

There's also a still-open discussion about whether the GFDL is free
enough for Debian if Invariant Sections are used.

Richard Braakman


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]