Licencing of Documentation

[George Deka]

both the GFDL and the CC Attribution are considered non-DFSG compatablile.
I think the GFDL meets the OSSF guidlines on free.
The reason why these two licences are not considered free is mainly
due to the attribution requirment being so strict, in that it must be
attributed in the same manner as the original. There are also other
issues with the CC ASA licence.
the debian-legal ML has had alot of discussion on these, there is also
a debian-legal wiki that coveres the debian position on these
licences.
The issue here is what free standard does ubuntu use DFSG or OSSF.

George


On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:03:47 +0800, Arun Bhanu <arun at codemovers.org> wrote:
> On 23:05 Tue 09 Nov     , Sivan Green wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 20:41 +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 06:17:21PM +0000, Louise McCance-Price wrote:
> > >
> > > > I said I'd find out about the licensing of documentation.
> > > > It appears the winner is:    GFDL
> > > > let me know your thoughts on this.
> > >
> > > Two questions:
> > >
> > >  1) GFDL documentation cannot currently go into Debian main.  Is there a
> > >     reason why GFDL has been chosen even if it has this problem?
> > >
> > >  2) (more practical) do we track invariant sections in the wiki, or we
> > >     say that wiki pages shouldn't have invariant sections except when
> > >     approved by someone/some group?
> >
> > I must join enrico on this, Lulu maybe you have an idea?
> 
> How about using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike[1] license?
> 
>         [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
> 
> Cheers,
> Arun...
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ubuntu-doc mailing list
> ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
> 


-- 
<a href="http://spreadfirefox.com/community/?q=affiliates&id=82&t=1">Get
Firefox!</a>