discuss: licensing issue
Subject:
Re: licensing issue
From:
"Joy E Yokley" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Dec 2001 17:13:21 -0000
Message-Id: <OF82DA234A.FCC1B63E-ON85256B18.005DE7FA@raleigh.ibm.com>
Kudos to you David,
I know it created a big pain of a problem with the Debian documentation,
but I don't think that there was any way that you could let it go once you
realized they were publishing nonfree documentation that they received from
us. You made a sound decision to inform a project that we were exposing
them to legal ramifications. I think your honesty and the hard work that
you do for the LDP serve the organization well. I'm sure that they
appreciate the way you represent our organization.
joy
Joy Yokley Goodreau
Linux Information Development
IBM Linux Technology Services
512-838-4118
David Merrill
<david@luperca To: ldp-discuss ####@####.####
lia.net> cc:
Subject: Re: licensing issue
12/03/01 08:58
PM
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:35:54PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> The Debian project is having a flame-fest about licensing issues.
> They are going to split the LDP into a free and a non-free package.
> This means the majority of the LDP will not be available on the
> base Debian system.
>
> I'm trying to get as many documents moved over to GFDL as I can before
> the freeze for Woody comes. I ask for all of your cooperation in
> helping me do this. The freeze comes on December 8, although some
> things can be passed through after that, especially stuff like
> documentation which isn't likely to break the system.
>
> I'm also finding a hell of a lot of dead emails and marking those
> documents unmaintained in the database. I'll post a list of those in
> each week's LDPWN in the hope we'll find some maintainers for them.
> Damn, what's changed (w/Debian) all of a sudden? This didn't appear
> to be a problem before, was it?
Sorry to reply to myself, but I've been asked what happened all of a
sudden, since we've never had a problem being in Debian before. Since
I am responsible for it I felt I should be upfront about it and
answer the question here.
LDP licensing wasn't a problem because nobody at Debian noticed it,
which seems just incredible to me. I guess the LDP is such an old
project that nobody ever gave it a thought.
Debian has not had a change in licensing policy; they were simply
unaware of LDP licensing. Which tells you how many people bother to
read licenses.
Colin Watson, the new LDP maintainer, approached me about ScrollServer
and we started talking about LDP packaging, which I had never looked
at before. I wanted to get Debian to start registering their
documentation, especially the LDP, with the ScrollKeeper database.
I was very surprised to find that they were including nonfree
documents in the main tree, which is a clear violation of the DFSG,
so I let him know they were in violation.
I realized then and now that this would be a problem for the LDP. I
thought about it long and hard and decided I had no other choice. Once
the situation came to my attention I couldn't just ignore it and
pretend I didn't know. That would have been deceptive and unethical in
my judgement.
--
Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose
both, and deserve neither.
-- Thomas Jefferson
_________________________
http://list.linuxdoc.org/
