Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> discussion whether software documentation in Debian has to meet the
> DFSG, or some different standards specific to documentation.
Three problems with that hypothesis:-
1. We don't have any way of distinguishing software and this documentation
in a safe manner. My local research suggests that software is generally
treated as a literary work and electronic documentation definitely is.
Even if Debian can distinguish them, I'm not sure that the law can.
2. The documentation is not the issue. The entire FDL-covered work is.
3. What about other content?
> [...] some choices in the range of license terms offered by
> the GFDL could still meet Debian's standards, although this subject to
> debate as well.
Consensus appeared to be forming that there were other problems than
the optional parts, I thought, but the thread is cold.
[...]
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
