discuss: licenses
Subject:
Re: licenses
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
25 Nov 2003 07:35:14 -0000
Message-Id: <20031125073436.GF738@lafn.org>
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:51:31PM -0800, Thomas Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Just remember, if you use the GDL your documentation won't be
> > > included in any Debian software (at least not in main), as it is
> > > not conpatable with the Debian Free Software Guidlines.
These Guidlines are, in my opinion, ambiguous and poorly concieved.
They need to be revised. I wrote pages of critism about them in the
past as a critique of the Open Source Definition (which are basically
the same). I've just put the critique on my website. See
http://www.lafn.org/~dave/linux/osd-crit-my.txt
But that was 5 years ago and if I were to redo it, I would have still
more to criticize.
> > > As a user (and sometimes
> > > reviewer) of documentation, I don't see how the GDL gets you
> > > anything more then the GPL; and sometimes gets you less.
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:05:09AM -0500, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> >
> > Not necessarily...Colin, are you still around? Is there an update on the
> > Official Word From Debian on the GDFL?
>
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:33:55AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> In its current form it looks likely that we'll have to throw it out,
> although that won't be happening en masse until after the next release.
> There are currently negotiations happening between delegates of Debian
> and the FSF to try to figure out how the licence could be revised to
> satisfy both parties, which might alleviate the impending doom, but it
> could get messy if those negotiations fail.
>
> For now, I'm advising people who ask me about it to use the GPL instead
> (perhaps with an attached note about how you're interpreting "source
> code"). I do tend to agree with Thomas above.
David Lawyer
