discuss: license issues
Subject:
Re: license issues
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
30 Apr 2004 00:06:20 -0000
Message-Id: <20040430000617.GS19884@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
> your current system might contain gnu fdl docs but my
> first mail regarding this was
>
> http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences
> which lists gnu fdl,ocl,cc licenses as non free.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is. Weren't you saying that...?
I certainly can if they have a free software
documentation license that they DO accept. currently
there seems to be none.
To reiterate points made several times earlier:
1. The above-cited wiki page was written by one guy. (His name is
Joachim Breitner, by the way.) It has no official sanction whatsoever.
2. That notwithstanding, the consensus of Debian developers is that
GFDL (at least) is non-free. However, I know this not from reading
Breitner's wiki page, but rather because I know that the developers
were polled on the subject.
> how many people would bsd license their docs?
I'm not sure why you're asking me this. Are you asking _me_ to conduct
a poll? ;->
However, at a minimum, all of the documentation for every bit of code to
emerge from the BSD project is BSD-licensed. Morever, a great deal of
documentation is MIT/X licensed, which amounts to the same thing.
> the number of useful free docs would very low in the
> next debian release if the above wiki is correct.
The wiki is (for reasons already discussed) _not_ particularly
credible. (My opinion; yours for a small fee and disclaimer of
reverse-engineering rights. ;-> )
> so I have the choice of bsd licensing my docs and
> getting it accepted by debian.
1. You seem to confusing Mr. Breitner's wiki page with some
sort of authority on getting documents "accepted by Debian' (by
which I assume you mean into the main collection as opposed to the
non-free collection). To reiterate: It isn't.
2. Moreover, you seem to feel that "software" licences cannot be
used for documentation. To reiterate: They are.
To reiterate: If you insist on a Web page definitively stating which
licences are DFSG-free, you're likely to be disappointed. _Wishing_ that
Breitner's wiki page were such a page really doesn't help much.
> i forgot to mention in the mail that i want the licensing to be share
> alike. i f you had read my previous mails i did mention that once
You have innumerable choices. They include, among others, GNU GPLv2.
Further information:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html
--
Cheers, "All power is delightful, but absolute power
Rick Moen is absolutely delightful." - Kenneth Tynan
####@####.####
