Licencing of Documentation

[Louise McCance-Price]

George Deka wrote:

>Lu,
>That works for me.
>
>But i do think having a standard would be good, so the GFDL in Mark's
>opinion  meets the ubuntu licence policy.
>
>Question: What if we had a modified GFDL without the invariant
>sections ? maybe call it the UFDL ?
>  
>
sounds like a good suggestion
can you direct me to the exact invariant sections you are concerned about?

thanks George
Lu

>George
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:49:23 +0000, Louise McCance-Price
><lu at canonical.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi guys
>>
>>Sorry - I didn't catch you, George, before you turned in.
>>
>>There has been much discussion and I think this will work for everyone.
>>
>>Mark is keen for it to be GFDL, but this will not be forced.
>>
>>The creator of the document can choose what license they wish to use.
>>Derived works will remain under the license of the originator.
>>
>>all best
>>Lu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>George Deka wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>