[@ -legal: please cc me on reply as I'm not subscribed]
Hi folks,
We (Network UPS Tools project) are currently looking at creating a complete documentation set using docbook, for output formats and i18n reasons.
This improvement in the upstream will, by side effect, (re)create a nut-doc package in Debian.
Knowing that: - NUT is a pure GPL project, thus we need a _free_ documentation licence, - GFDL seems to be to doc what GPL is to source code, so it seems the good choice for our aim, - the current consensus on -legal is that GFDL isn't DFSG compliant in its current form (from what I've read in the Debian Statement about GFDL and -devel), - Debian is our GNU/Linux reference distribution for several reasons, and we don't want nut packages to be split between main and non-free! - however, if choosing GFDL, the RM won't consider it as an RC bug (so not blocking for sarge/future stable), - the FSF steps about modifying GFDL might not occur before long (a year seems, according to RMS main focus on GPL V3)
So, what are your advices about choosing a _free_ documentation licence for NUT?
Thanks for your constructive advices, and please, don't start any flamewar as it's not the aim of this mail.
Arnaud Quette
---
DD (nut, wmnut, knutclient)
Upstream developer Team of NUT
...
---
References:
- NUT upstream: http://www.exploits.org/nut/
- NUT Sid packages: http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=nut&searchon=names&subword=1&version=unstable&release=all
- Debian Statement about GFDL: http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
