Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 20:27 +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > [GFDL, OpenPub, ...] >> I think we should move these to tetex-doc-nonfree, and only try to >> contact the maintainers whether they are willing to relicense them once >> we know about a DFSG-free documentation license, in other words, >> hopefully once the revised CC licenses are released. > > ACK. As long only licenses meant for programs are known DFSG free, there > is no point asking authors to change licenses.
Well, the current recommendation is to license the documentation under GPL or a BSD-like license. While the wording of the BSD licenses is fine for anything, the GPL wording (object code etc.) doesn't fit well to documentation, but BSD isn't "copyleft", i.e. it allows proprietary derivatives. In the case of l2tabu, I know that Mark Trettin won't license it under the GPL, and although I didn't talk about BSD, I don't think it's worth it. And after all, putting nonfree documentation into a different package doesn't put a "bad" label on the document, it's just a question of policy (and they're in good company, namely with RMS and the FSF)... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
