Jakub Nadolny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know what the last phrase is meant to mean "publishers ask > > only for information about it". > > It means that if you copy or cite this publication, they ask you to send > them information about it. > I think that could be the problem, isn't it?
If they *ask* for you to send them information about it, that's perfectly fine. If they *require* you to send them information about it, yes, that would be a problem. It depends on how you interpret "ask." > > It would be good to contact the publisher, to ask for clarification. > > If it turns out that the license (or lack thereof) lacks freedoms > > required for inclusion into Debian, then you might discuss an > > alternate license with them (hopefully something which is already > > translated into English!). > > Ok, I'll contact them. What would you suggest - GFDL? Creative Commons? Neither the GFDL nor any existing Creative Commons license is DFSG-compliant. Since the text says it is not copyrighted, and the only problem is that this statement disclaiming copyright is unclear, you might suggest the Creative Commons public domain dedication text: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ (Despite the URL, public domain status is, of course, not a license.) regards, Graue -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
