On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 21:15:56 +0200 Antonio Terceiro wrote: > [Please keep me in Cc: as I am not subscribed to debian-legal]
Done. > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:04:42PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote: > > Package: src:ruby-gsl > > Severity: serious > > user: debian...@lists.debian.org > > usertags: gfdl-invariant > > > > File rdoc/ref.rdoc is under non free license (gfdl with invariant > > sections). > > > > Please ask for relicense, repackage or move to non-free package. > > For reference of debian-legal folks, the file rdoc/ref.rdoc in the ruby-gsl > source package contains the following: [...] > So we can see that > > a) The Ruby/GSL reference is a derived work based on the GSL reference > > b) The GSL reference is licensed under the GFDL with invariant sections > > c) The Ruby/GSL reference is licensed under the GFDL without invariant > sections. > > As I undertand it, the Ruby/GSL documentation is violating the GSL > documentation as it does not include the mentioned invariant sections. Hi Antonio! Your analysis looks correct to me: if a document was really derived from one licensed under GFDL with invariant material (Invariant Sections, Front-/Back-Cover Texts, ...), but fails to include such material, it seems that the terms of the license for the original document are not complied with. :-/ > > But the GSL reference manual (available online at > http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/) was since then > relicensed under the GFDL with no invariant sections, I am personally convinced that GFDL-licensed works are non-free, even when they do not include any invariant material. Hence, I am not satisfied by the above-described re-licensing. However, the Debian Project (unfortunately) decided to accept GFDL-licensed works in main, when they do not include invariant material, as I am sure you know [1]. [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 As a consequence, the re-licensing you mentioned is considered enough to fix the non-freeness issue with the GSL reference. > what would make it > OK to license the Ruby/GSL reference as GFDL with no invariant sections, > if it was derived from the current version. Yes, I think that re-deriving the Ruby/GSL reference from the current GSL reference would fix the license violation issue and (as far as the Debian Project is concerned) the non-freeness issue with the Ruby/GSL reference, as well. I instead personally would like to see both references re-licensed under uncontroversially DFSG-free terms (such as the GNU GPL license)... [...] > Unfortunately Ruby/GSL is inactive upstream and I would't hold my breath > waiting for an upstream release that fixes that. > > Any advice on the better course of action in this case? Some possible courses of action that come to my mind: A) persuade both teams to re-license their respective references under the GNU GPL (the re-licensing of the GSL reference should be made valid for the old version as well) B) persuade the GSL team to re-license their reference under the GNU GPL and re-write a new Ruby/GSL reference based on that C) persuade the GSL team to extend the re-licensing under the GFDL-NIV (GFDL without invariant material) to the old version of the GSL reference D) re-write a new Ruby/GSL reference based on the current GSL reference E) cure the license violation by re-adding the missing invariant material (copied from the old version of the GSL reference) to the Ruby/GSL reference and move this manual to the non-free archive (I am not sure this would be legally sound, though) F) ...? I hope this helps, at least a little. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpqcAbWpVf4K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
