Licencing of Documentation

[George Deka]

Lu,

Here is the debian analysis of GFDL, which covers the invariant
sections. The other issues they have with it are nothing too
big/special in my eyes. (Some may just need rewording)
http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

Licence: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1
Section 1 - Defenitions
Section 4 - G,L,N

Because simply if a document has an invariant section it cannot be translated.
So as far as I am concerned we should rip out invariant sections
completly from the license.

George




On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:24:07 +0000, Louise McCance-Price
<lu at canonical.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 


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