On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:39:51PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > [I am not stably subscribed to debian-* yet; please CC: me.] > [This is not really debian-devel issue yet. So removed from Reply-To:] > > Thanks Branden for reminding us about important insights to the licensing > issues as below. We have at least 2 separate issues with Javi's mail. > > 1) Javi's assessment of ddp-policy document status (..) > > > Since no one has spoken against the documentation which I presented as a > > > draft DDP Policy I was thinking if it would be useful to publish this at > > > the website since the questions about license+documentation seems to > > > came up often. Anyone against it? > > This is not true. Adam stated against and I concurred. Adam was supposed > to update its content with much narrower scope contents so this document > becomes acceptable as a policy document. He is slow doing it but that > does not make it right for Javi to state above statement.
I am still wating for Adam patches (it's been a while). However, I do not
want to change it from a draft into a official policy. I just want to add
it to the DDP website documentation and mark it _there_ as a draft. The
fact that it's not even listed in the DDP website reduces it usefulness.
So, I was basicly asking (probably wrongly worded) to:
a) add a link to the draft from w.d.o/doc/ddp (currently hidden under
w.d.o/doc/docpolicy)
b) add it to the list of developers' manuals (w.d.o/doc/index and
w.d.o/doc/devel-manuals)
Of course, I'm not going to change it's status. It will still be called a
'draft' but it will be given wider exposure. Few people (as demonstrated by
the discussion at -devel and the fact that people at -legal are not aware
of the license section) are aware that we are drafting a policy for
documentation in the Debian project.
> Besides, the contents such as:
> * 3.5.3 Files installed by the Debian package (Option1)
> * 3.5.4 Files installed by the Debian package (Option2)
> exist, too. These 2 options are there because THIS is DRAFT. Proposed
> policy must have only one of the two.
I probably worded it wrongly, it's still a DRAFT to me, not proposed
policy, but it's not being given enough exposure. Notice that I could make
the changes myself in the wml sources without asking (and I have meant to
do so for quite some time) but I wanted to say it first here in case anyone
opposed for it to be "officialy" published in _draft_ form.
> Did Adam indicated he stopped doing rewrite of ddp-policy? Did I miss
> something? (Sorry for my long absense from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
No he did not, but still, there have been few updates of the document
itself (and I did tell Adam to go ahead and hack it as needed)
> > > We can still keep the draft status in the webpages but it would give it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > a wider audience to it. Also, I would appreciate any help from fello doc
> > > maintainers to polish the sections which are in a _very_ draft mode.
> > >
Is it clear now.
> Very interesting insight.
>
> I can not speak for Adam but, IMHO, these section are good as a part of
> appendix. For policy document, we should simply
>
> * require document to be DSFG Free
> * recommend to use GPL
>
That's precisely what the current policy document says. Please re-read it.
> So if this section survive as a part of policy document, please update
> this accordingly.
It already says so. It's not clear to me it would be useful to move the
discussion on other acceptable licenses to the appendix. I would gladly
include a statement on current accepted documentation licenses if -legal
people were so nice as to write it, instead of keep arguing that the DDP
policy is wrong and inaccurate. They all have CVS access to the that
document and can modify it as needed.
I only have so much time to dig into -legal archives and extract
discussions on documentation licenses, but it should be obvious to people
that read the document that I have made a best effort to compile references
to discussions and consensus when available. I have not yet seen a message
in -legal with enough consensus contradicting what it's already in the DDP
Policy. The latest "conensus" I've seen is Anthony Towns's (Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [1]), those ideas were
seconded by most -legal members. I'm waiting for someone to point me to a
(more recent) consensuated (sp?) mail contradicting that one. I still
haven't seen it (and no, however worthy Branden's opinions are, he does not
represent the whole at -legal, IMHO)
In any case, I do not care as much as the current content as for the
content to be as accurate as possible. I would appreciate help from people
at -legal but it seems that the only help I get is the usual "bash & run"
stuff. Who said maintaining documents wasn't fun? :-)
Regards
Javi
PS: Nonetheless, I'm updating the common section of the DDP Policy document
wrt to the GFDL.
[1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html
AFAIK no other thread asks for consensus on this issue. I've seen a lot of
debate and discussion...
pgpaumlG4za5O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
