On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:20:45 +0200 anatoly techtonik wrote: > Hello,
Hello... > > Following recent Python policy updates I wonder if GPL is really the > license of choice for software documentation in Debian? IMHO, yes it is and it should be, really! The GPL is the best choice, whenever a copyleft license is being searched for. For any kind of work: programs, documentation, images, and so forth... This is my personal opinion, but is shared by others, as well. > There are many > other licenses available that are more clear to general public, such > as Creative Commons. Creative Commons are not clear at all! Try and read their actual legal text: there are many open questions, such as the ones around the infamous anti-DRM clause, where even official Creative Commons representatives refused to disclose the intended meaning of the clause. There are other problematic clauses, IMHO. I summarized my concerns about CC-by-v3.0 (which is even simpler than CC-by-sa-v3.0) in the following message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html As you can see, I am convinced that CC-by-v3.0 does *not* meet the DFSG. However, the FTP-masters disagree with me, and accept works released under the terms of this license (and of CC-by-sa-v3.0) in Debian main. Anyway, claiming that Creative Commons licenses are "clear" seems to be a huge stretch. The Creative Commons "human-readable summaries" may seem to be clear, but, unfortunately, they are just summaries (and not very accurate, BTW): they are not the actual legal terms... > > The second question may seem strange, but why copyleft license is > used? Hopefully in order to prevent the distribution of proprietary derivative works... > Does it allow to cite Debian Policy in books without making > those books freely available? Within the quotation limits established by the applicable copyright law, it is always allowed to quote a published work, AFAIK: the Berne Convention seems to say that signatory countries have to implement quotation rights in their copyright laws. http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P144_26032 > > Please, CC. Done. [...] > >> One specific problem is that nobody understands what do you mean > >> when releasing something that is not software under GPL. > > > > The Debian policy is digital information, therefore it is software > > (as opposed to hardware). > > > > Perhaps you mean “something that is not a program”. > > I mean that "documentation for software" is not software > itself.Software can render documentation or process it. Documentation > can be printed and still remain documentation. Software is not. [...] You seem to be fond of the strict meaning of the term "software". There's also a broad meaning. Please see my essay on this distinction: http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissoftware.html Anyway, whatever you mean by "software", it seems that this FAQ has already been pointed out to you on debian-python: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware This should make it clear that the GPL *can* be used for non-program works. I hope this helps to clarify. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgp4sa9Ey4oJ0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
