Am 25.01.2013 00:52, schrieb Colin Watson: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:54:43PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote: >> This mail goes to the Debian admins. I think that's mostly >> Colin Watson. > > Exclusively me; I have no co-maintainers of the groff package at > present. That said, the General Resolution regarding the GFDL was a > decision of the whole project. > >>> Von: "Bernd Warken" <groff-bernd.warken...@web.de> >>> >>> The groff source tree is usually licensed to GPL. That is excellent. >>> >>> But there are also some documents under the GNU FDL. This is regarded >>> as bad by Debian. Many years ago, Debian made the groff package as >>> non-free because of the FDL. So I changed many documentation files in >>> the groff tree to GPL. >>> >>> In 2006, Debian made a voting wether the FDL should become free >>> software: >>> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001.en.html >>> >>> They decided that the FDL without invariant sections would be compatible >>> with Debian. >> >> Can you tell us what Debian says today about using FDL (without >> invariant sections), especially for GNU projects like groff. > > The most recent vote of the Debian project on the subject was the one > that you link above. However, I'm afraid you've misquoted the outcome: > it says "unmodifiable sections", not merely Invariant Sections. (The > full text of the winning option was > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001#amendmenttexta.) Cover Texts > are unmodifiable in some contexts and fall under this ruling, and the > GFDL application to groff.info includes both Front-Cover and Back-Cover > Texts. That is explicitly unacceptable to Debian. If those Cover Texts > were omitted then we would have no problem. > > However, since the LICENSE file stipulates that all files part of groff > are licensed under the GPL v3 or later, and I took care to explicitly > clarify the intent of this with Werner in an e-mail discussion which I > excerpted in the debian/copyright file in the Debian groff source > package, this is not currently a practical problem for Debian. We take > advantage of the dual-licensing and distribute our groff packages under > the terms of the GPL, not those of the GFDL. > > At present, I see no need to rock the boat by changing anything; the > dual-licensing of documentation files seems adequate. >
NTL, for some people that is an issue and i am not a friend of double licensing because that may cause complication. There is a license for linux man-pages [http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/licenses.html] Is there any reason not to use them ? re, wh
