Many of you are already aware (me included but I have not participated/read all the relevant threads) that this horse might have been beaten to death in as many threads over the years. However there is not a single place that summarises all this information and shows the "official" (Debian's as opposed to personal opinions) stand on documentation licenses.
Let's see if I can help fix this. I have just committed [1] a summary of the information regarding documentation licenses (not only the GFDL). To read it online please visit http://www.dat.etsit.upm.es/~jfs/ddp/manuals.sgml/ddp-policy/ddp-policy.en.html/ch-common.en.html Please, I would be most greatful if people reviewed this and submitted comments to the document itself (as opposed to personal interpretations). Also, I would like to know (Branden? anyone?) what is the status of Branden's proposed interpretation of the DFSG clause 3 [2] IMHO we need to improve the information available on this issue (and the mailing lists threads are certainly not enough) in order to avoid having this issue jump in and out again and again [3] Regards Javi [1] Will not be compiled until tomorrow but, for the moment being, it's available in the CVS area at http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/ddp-policy/en/common.sgml?cvsroot=debian-doc and compiled in: http://www.dat.etsit.upm.es/~jfs/ddp/manuals.sgml/ddp-policy/ddp-policy.en.html/ch-common.en.html [2] Final draft here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html Previously discussed here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00100.html And a summary seems to be this one: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00450.html [3] It would also be nice to include relevant information to http://www.debian.org/intro/free too
pgp1HmaLgh58I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
