Future direction of Ubuntu Documentation/Meeting times

[Matt Galvin]

On 7/29/05, Benj. Mako Hill <mako at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> <quote who="Sean Wheller" date="Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 08:03:58AM +0200">
> > With regard to licensing issues. I see no reason to change the
> > licensing we currently have. These licenses were agree by mako and
> > sabdfl. They are standard licenses and widely used throughout the
> > community.
> >
> > The argument that Debian won't accept does not cut it. Ubuntu docs
> > do not move upstream since they are not Debian. It was never
> > intended that Ubuntu docs would write and push upstream. If people
> > wish to do so, then I think they should move upstream.
> 
> I think that pushing upstream, and in particular to Debian, is a very
> good idea and something we should strive to allow.

I agree with Sean in that we are writing Ubuntu docs not Debian(per
say) docs, or generic Gnome docs and that originally we did not
"intend" for the docs to go upstream. Although I do also think that,
where possible, we should at least do things in a way that allows us
to share our shareable work. I would like to stress "where possible".
Tiny example... Obviously documentation about that fact the *buntu has
root disable, is not relevant to Debian or Gnome.

> More importantly, licensing under a CC-BY-SA license will be
> acceptable by Debian in the very near future as the next version of
> the CC license will (we are quite confident) be DFSG free and fully
> acceptable by the Debian project. The high probability of this
> happening was one reason why I advocated the GFDL and CC-BY-SA
> licensing scheme for documents that we create from scratch within
> Ubuntu.

I am glad to hear that Debian will soon(hopefully) be accepting
CC-BY-SA licensed content. Either way at this stage in the release
cycle we may not want to get into the license changing debate. I have
no objections to having the content I worked on for
powerpc.ubuntuguide.org being distributed under GPL(Chua would also
have to agree), but maybe we should discuss changing the license for
breezy+1 since CC-BY-SA is what was agreed upon for breezy many months
ago.

Matt