On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:32:50PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:27:58PM -0500, David Merrill wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:48:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: > > > I haven't followed the discussion in detail, but I understand the > > > problems are with invariant sections used on anything but rather small > > > sections of text (typically the copyright itself, a note about company > > > sponsorship, or things like that). Documents without invariant sections > > > are fine as far as I know. > > > > I think we have only 1 or 2 that might even be questionable. I know 1 > > has a section added when it was archived. It shouldn't be an issue. > > We don't currently distribute HOWTOs that have been archived (if by that > you mean the documents in unmaintained/), so that should be OK.
Yes, it's listed as "unmaintained" on the site, but that's because before I got there there was no real difference between the two. > > > My current plan is to have my refresh scripts get the XML database dump > > > first, then use that plus a set of licence rules to decide which > > > documents to download to produce this month's doc-linux tarball. The > > > main problem is likely to be deciding which of the documents with > > > licences flagged as "OTHER" are free and which aren't, which is where > > > debian-legal's decisions about documentation licences are likely to > > > become most important. > > > > Other usually means non-free, in my experience. Those "licenses" are > > usually just a statement that it is freely distributable, not a formal > > license. > > OK. I'll have a look through a selection of them as and when I have time > and see if I find any that are DFSG-free, in which case I can make > case-by-case exceptions for packaging. I am writing 15-20 authors every day and asking for them to relicense under GFDL. So far I have received almost complete cooperation. > > What is the latest we could put off the actual implementation? I want > > a chance to get as many documents as possible relicensed before it > > goes into Woody. Let's try to minimize the impact, heh? > > The standard freeze, which includes doc-linux, starts on December 8 and > finishes (as I understand it) a month after that. I want to allow at > least two weeks to get doc-linux-non-free accepted and to make sure > there aren't any major packaging problems, so we need to start the > implementation as soon as possible and upload a nearly-final version > three weeks from now. Tweaks can be made after that if necessary. > > Unless there are further objections, the conversations in this thread > suggest I should divide the package as follows: > > doc-linux: GFDL, GPL, OPL, PD > doc-linux-non-free: LDPL, NONE, OTHER Yep. > It will also be worth investigating the packages of LDP translations. As > far as I can tell, the ones that are parts of tasks and so subject to > the next stage of the freeze are the Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese > translations; I've cc'ed their maintainers so they're aware of the > problem. Cool. -- Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net Linux Documentation Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org Microsoft is - and will be - important, but it's hard to predict this stuff. Say you'd been around in 1980, trying to predict the PC revolution. You never would've come and seen me. --Bill Gates in Wired 2.12
