Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep > discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO) > > I'm curious, why the heck is not debian-doc consulted (or CCed) whenever > debian-legal starts discussing documentation licenses. It could be nice, > if only to ask for opinions of the DDP project.
debian-legal is where "Copyright, licensing and patent issues" are discussed. The GFDL is a license, so it is natural to discuss it there, where people are interested and versed in interpreting licenses. > I have read the start of the thread [1] after reading the > (not-yet-published) latest DWN, and I'm starting to think we are having a > "fix problems with a hammer" issue (you know, the saying "when you have a > hammer everything looks like a nail"). There are many, many more discussions than that. > You see, the DFSG is just that: the Debian Free _Software_ Guidelines. Why > on earth are we comparing documentation licenses with a _software_ > licenses' guideline? It makes no sense. You are not the first to make such a claim. It has been discussed ad nauseam. Feel free to read the archives (it may take a while) to understand why some people disagree with you. > It is my opinion that Debian should produce the Debian Free > _Documentation_ Guidelines which need not be related to the current DFSG > (but could use some tips from it, obviously). > > I am willing to produce such a draft but _only_ if people stop throwing > the DFSG against document writers. It does _not_ apply, we need to write a > new set of guidelines. That would, in effect, alter the founding documents of Debian. Feel free to propose a GR. > PPS: Btw the argument by Walter Landry on the GFDL not be DFSG-free > because of : "(...) The GFDL doesn't allow this, which counts as a use > restriction. (...)" [2] is moot since there is nothing about that "use > restriction" in the DFSG. Clause 5/6 talk about "no discriminitaion" > agains persons or fields of endeavor. Obfuscated code, for example, might > make it difficult to use a program in a given environment but it's not > restriciting it per license. Obfuscated code can be DFSG-free The point in that post was that the GFDL was making it impossible, not just difficult, to use in particular ways. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
