Hi *, On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 02:05:41PM +0100, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > >Who will use GPL for documentation? > > Some people do. Perhaps this is not the best time to elaborate. Given > that some of the posts lately have been a little heated.
OK, then let's postpone the discussion. > [...] > Since > the other licenses didn't fit the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The > best people to discuss the why of the GPL for documentation is the > debian-legal mailing list. The discussion there was very long and > exhaustive. I wouldn't look forward to repeating it. I don't ask for repeating the discussion, I ask for the result. Why does the PDL not fullfill the DFSG? > >Furthermore: How useful is OOo-centric documentation for other people's > >documentation? > > If Debian decided to distribute the document, that would be useful. ? The point was "reuse parts of the documentation in other documentation". Where is the realation to Debian in this case? > >>it prevents distribution by Debian (the largest Linux distro), > > > >Why should it? This is one of the random, not clarified points. > > Because the PDL is not a free license according to the Debian Free > Software Guidelines. It fails some of their tests. This is something > that the debian-legal mailing list can explain infinitely better than I. Since you took part in that discussion, you could surely summarize the point where the PDL fails or at least post a pointer to the discussion. > >So why should it prevent distribution with Debian? > > Don't quote me on this, but I *think* it failed the "isolated island" > test, and perhaps one more. I surely won't since I cannot find a reference to the "isolated island" test and don't know what this should be about. Google search for '"isolated island" debian PDL' returns 0 results '"isolated island" debian guideline' returns 0 results as well. http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines doesn't mention island or isolated at all either. > >Another claim. What is the heavy work? Writing something like "added > >chapter about XY", "fixed typos", "reworded XY"? > > Is that enough detail for the purpose of the license? I don't know.Do > you have to list every single change including page number, original > text and the new one? That would be excessive. Don't you think this is absurd? > At the other extreme, can > you get away with "reviewed the chapter and made edits"? I don't know. Yes, in my understanding. If the changes are only technically/minor. It is a question of common sense. (What is the intention behind that clause) > And the only way to find out is to get in legal trouble and have a judge > decide. Suppose you make 50 edits to a chapter (that's not very much). No. It is not the only way. The only real way would have been to ask for clarification on that point, to either release an explanative add-on to the license or make a new revision of the license. ciao Christian -- NP: Metallica - Mercyful Fate --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
