Re: License for DOCs in main?
On 26 Jan 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > IMHO, the restrictions below do not prevent us distributing on CD, and
> > I believe that we already have docs in main with licenses as harsh as
> > this.
>
> E.g. the GPL itself, as a document, is under copyright conditions that
> would definitely make it non DFSG-free had it happened to be a source
> code.
>
> > > 02. Any translation or derivative work of The Linux Net-
> > > work Administrators' Guide must be approved by the au-
> > > thor in writing before distribution.
>
> > This is awful.
>
> I don't think that clause has any legal significance compared to if
> it wasn't present. If distribution of derived work is not *explicitly*
> allowed, it is forbidden.
>
> Would you require that any documentation on the CDs should come with
> copyright statemtents that explicitly allowed modification?
In an ideal world, I would, yes.
I believe that all the arguments levelled at free software apply to
technical documentation.
I believe that many of them apply to many other works which are not
documentation.
However, this is not (explicitly) debian policy at the moment.
I will bring up the argument on -policy again soon, when I have the
energy. If anyone else wants to, go for it..
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: