Comment 35 for bug 27858

Ralf Stubner <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 20:27 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> [GFDL, OpenPub, ...]
>> I think we should move these to tetex-doc-nonfree, and only try to
>> contact the maintainers whether they are willing to relicense them once
>> we know about a DFSG-free documentation license, in other words,
>> hopefully once the revised CC licenses are released.
>
> ACK. As long only licenses meant for programs are known DFSG free, there
> is no point asking authors to change licenses.

Well, the current recommendation is to license the documentation under
GPL or a BSD-like license. While the wording of the BSD licenses is
fine for anything, the GPL wording (object code etc.) doesn't fit well
to documentation, but BSD isn't "copyleft", i.e. it allows proprietary
derivatives.

In the case of l2tabu, I know that Mark Trettin won't license it under
the GPL, and although I didn't talk about BSD, I don't think it's worth
it.

And after all, putting nonfree documentation into a different package
doesn't put a "bad" label on the document, it's just a question of
policy (and they're in good company, namely with RMS and the FSF)...

Regards, Frank

--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)