On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:39:45PM -0500, Mike O'Connor wrote: > from the documentation in question:
> "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or > any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the > Invariant Sections being ``GNU General Public License'' and ``GNU Free > Documentation License'', with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no > Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section > entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License''." > The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL > and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being > invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in > light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I'm copying debian-legal. Debian accepts that the license for a work itself may be invariant, but if the documentation isn't released under the GPL, why is it ok to require us to carry around the text of some *other* license with that documentation? My own answer to this is that it isn't. It's sane for us to be required to distribute a copy of the license together with a work; it's not sane for us tobe required to distribute copies of *other* licenses that have no legal relevance together with a work. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
