-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, January 18, Javier Fern�ndez-Sanguino Pe�a wrote: > On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 01:25:37PM -0600, Mark Johnson wrote: > > > > Shouldn't the license be the FDL? Seems to me that the FDL is the > > documentation counterpart to the GPL. > > > > License: FDL > > > For this and other issues (i.e docbook vs debiandoc) you might want > to read the current draft for the DDP policy available at > www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy
Thanks Javi. The following statement concerning the GFDL is in the ddp policy manual: "The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is acceptable provided that there are no Cover Texts or Invariant sections." Since I haven't a clue what "Cover Texts" or "Invariant sections" are, I'm inclined to go with the GPL. Does the GPL sound appropriate to the DDP for this policy doc? (I'd like to keep things as simple as possible.) Thanks, Mark - -- _____________________________________ Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian XML/SGML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: <http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/> GPG fp: 50DF A22D 5119 3485 E9E4 89B2 BCBC B2C8 2BE2 FE81 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iQEXAwUBPinXz7y8ssgr4v6BFAJB/gQAs0IMQtoafsJy1YwLPX020udfyPDRqGY6 1t2NIA98UcEpjRxQpHFFt5ew4WxJ5ZSe5ihdEogWunJkEImmQ55SRgM2cXTG8jwY 7yoPcMRw0bJtMUij/mQGzFj93RxhvCJ1QATz6C0O8xEG2/xo3O711SMcYfNILpbp RsJtX+bRHIQD/RwxBko5yuGrtuKkZpgfAgRA49umHN/Jhk9vzZ1RfZwBgoj+YOsH 7AHrmDdurC1LA1Psin7zoYUXLQbxh+PkLdouMywok/Q0OsGiWHk+0/0IvjvmVUpP CUhZXQ+OK1PigcuWnEOEwmAal66Ihbmmsc3wyTZLDqAwT1f62cfhm4lO =EIYP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
