discuss: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
Subject:
Re: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2005 06:09:02 -0000
Message-Id: <20050309184934.GA1071@lafn.org>
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:36:53PM -0700, doug jensen wrote:
> > Quoting Emma Jane Hogbin ####@####.####
> >
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:08:45PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> > "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."
As far as I know, Debian doesn't have any non-free packages anymore, at
least not in their new versions. It's about time! I just downloaded
the regular package and it said during installation (on the screen) that
it was removing my non-free stuff. But, surprise surprise, the non-free
docs now seem to be in the standard doc packages: doc-linux and
doc-linux-html. So according to Debian, everything we have is OK (I
said OK, not free). So let's say nothing about Debian in the Author
Guide since they are accepting everything we have in the same package.
David Lawyer
PS: In view of the above, the questions of Debian governance are a moot
point as far as the Author Guide is concerned. But I've seen some
things in the past regarding Debian policy which I've been quite
critical of, so I would not necessarily discount what Rick Moen said.
BTW, the new packages are both version 2004.11-l. One is text and the
other html. They replace the obsolete non-free packages per the package
list. I use the "testing" packages.
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:08:45PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> >
> > 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
