discuss: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
Subject:
Re: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
doug jensen ####@####.####
Date:
9 Mar 2005 20:37:27 -0000
Message-Id: <20050309203653.GA21926@debian>
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:08:45PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Emma Jane Hogbin ####@####.####
>
> > A great email, thanks!! (I hope you don't mind me not quoting it.) I haven't
> > published the changes to the Author Guide yet. Just let me know what it
> > should say with respect to Debian and I'll update it! It's true that I was
> > duped by the webmaster. I don't understand where to go for the "official"
> > word from Debian. (And I too am a Debian user. Love it, love them, don't
> > love the stuff to do with licensing documentation it's just too murky for
> > the number of hours in a day...if you know what I mean.)
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> "Debian as a general rule devolves judgements about licensing to the
> maintainers of individual packages. In theory, they apply the Debian
> Free Software Guidelines (link) to such decisions. They are encouraged
> but not required to consult views expressed on the debian-legal mailing
> list (link), but then make up their own minds. Regardless, the upshot
> would be to land your document in either the main or non-free package
> collection, nothing worse."
>
> I realise that's perhaps a little half-assed. One could go into the
> exact nature of Debian governance, but I figure that would be WAY
> outside our scope, here.
Rick has introduced a fairly high amount of misinformation to this
sub-thread. Emma has indicated her intention to use the information
provided by Rick in the Author Guide, I would like to know if that is
still the case?
--
Doug Jensen
