| 1 |
jfs |
1870 |
<chapt id="common">Common policy for documentation |
| 2 |
|
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
<sect>Responsible party |
| 4 |
|
|
<p>Documents must be maintained by at least one <em>Author</em>. |
| 5 |
|
|
If the author is unavailable and nobody steps up to keep maintaining |
| 6 |
|
|
its manuals they might be considered <em>Orphaned</em> and treated |
| 7 |
|
|
as such (could be removed from publishing if its contents get too |
| 8 |
|
|
much out-of-date). Also, optionally there might be many <em>Translators</em>. |
| 9 |
|
|
</p> |
| 10 |
|
|
<p>Interested translators are encouraged to contact first the author of a |
| 11 |
jseidel |
3426 |
document and then, if it exists, the localization team for the language |
| 12 |
jfs |
1870 |
the translator wants to translate too. This helps authors keep track |
| 13 |
|
|
of who is translating the document (in case somebody else volunteers) |
| 14 |
jseidel |
3426 |
and also prevents for duplicate effort (maybe somebody in the localization |
| 15 |
jfs |
1870 |
team is currently translating it and has not contacted the main author). |
| 16 |
|
|
</p> |
| 17 |
|
|
|
| 18 |
|
|
<sect>License |
| 19 |
|
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
<p>All documention of the Debian Documentation Project (DDP) must be |
| 21 |
jseidel |
3426 |
released under a free license (free to use, modify and distribute). |
| 22 |
jfs |
1946 |
<footnote> |
| 23 |
jfs |
2001 |
Note that there is currently disagreement regarding wether or not |
| 24 |
|
|
documentation can be asked to be <em>free in the DFSG sense</em>. |
| 25 |
|
|
Arguably, the DFSG does not really apply to documentation since |
| 26 |
|
|
they are free <strong>software</strong> guidelines. Some other people |
| 27 |
|
|
think there is not really any distinction between documentation and |
| 28 |
jfs |
2368 |
software. The debate on this have not finished yet but it may be |
| 29 |
|
|
worthwhile reading the thread at debian-legal |
| 30 |
|
|
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00100.html" name="Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works">. |
| 31 |
jfs |
1946 |
</footnote> |
| 32 |
|
|
for the Debian project to use. This is true not only for documentation provided |
| 33 |
jfs |
2307 |
by the DDP authors themselves but for documentation provided in the Debian |
| 34 |
jseidel |
3426 |
operating system by packages (including FAQs, manpages, help pages, etc.).</P> |
| 35 |
jfs |
1946 |
|
| 36 |
|
|
|
| 37 |
jfs |
3552 |
<P>The <em>recommended</em> license for any (new) document in Debian is the |
| 38 |
jfs |
2368 |
GNU General Public License |
| 39 |
jfs |
1946 |
<footnote>For more information refer to this |
| 40 |
|
|
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/1998/debian-doc-199809/msg00005.html" |
| 41 |
|
|
name="thread on the debian-doc mailing list">. |
| 42 |
|
|
</footnote> |
| 43 |
|
|
More often than not, documentation is directly dependant to software used |
| 44 |
|
|
by Debian and thus has to be modified under the same conditions. This applies |
| 45 |
jfs |
2368 |
to technical documentation that is related to software. It might not fully |
| 46 |
|
|
apply to other kind of documents, but since documentation licenses are at |
| 47 |
|
|
still at their infancy (most are under heavy discussion) the GPL is preferred |
| 48 |
|
|
since documentation which uses it is clearly <em>free</em> in the DFSG sense. |
| 49 |
jfs |
1870 |
</p> |
| 50 |
|
|
|
| 51 |
|
|
<p>Note however that some documentation licenses are acceptable too, granted |
| 52 |
jfs |
1946 |
that they do not impose unnecessary restrictions: |
| 53 |
jfs |
1870 |
|
| 54 |
jfs |
1946 |
<list> |
| 55 |
jfs |
2368 |
|
| 56 |
jfs |
3552 |
<item>The <url id="http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html" |
| 57 |
|
|
name="FreeBSD Documentation License"> is acceptable. Just make sure that you |
| 58 |
|
|
adapt it to your document by changing the project name and the source format. |
| 59 |
|
|
|
| 60 |
jfs |
2368 |
<item>The Linux Documentation Project (LDP) |
| 61 |
|
|
<url id="http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html" name="Linux Documentation Project License v2.0"> is |
| 62 |
|
|
acceptable (as discussed in the |
| 63 |
|
|
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0305/msg00282.html" |
| 64 |
|
|
name="debian-legal mailing list">), notice that this is not the same as |
| 65 |
|
|
the boilerplate license suggested in the |
| 66 |
|
|
<url id="http://www.tldp.org/manifesto.html" name="TLDP manifesto"> which |
| 67 |
|
|
is, on it's own, non-free because it requires new versions to be sent to the |
| 68 |
|
|
TLDP. |
| 69 |
|
|
|
| 70 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/pdl.pdf" name="Sun's documentation license"> |
| 71 |
|
|
(used by OpenOffice) is also acceptable (as discussed in the |
| 72 |
|
|
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200208/msg00267.html" |
| 73 |
|
|
name="debian-legal mailing list">) |
| 74 |
|
|
|
| 75 |
|
|
</list> |
| 76 |
|
|
|
| 77 |
|
|
<p>There is not yet a full consensus for the following licenses and |
| 78 |
|
|
document authors are recommended not to use them: |
| 79 |
|
|
|
| 80 |
|
|
<list> |
| 81 |
jfs |
2428 |
|
| 82 |
|
|
<item>The <url id="http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/" name="Open Publication License (OPL)"> |
| 83 |
|
|
even if none of the license options |
| 84 |
|
|
<footnote> |
| 85 |
|
|
Some people think that some sections, such as IV.2, IV.4 and IV.5 might |
| 86 |
|
|
be too restrictive, and IV.3 might be more specific than needed. However, |
| 87 |
|
|
this license was discussed in the debian-legal mailing list in |
| 88 |
|
|
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00173.html" name="october 2001">, |
| 89 |
|
|
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-200001/msg00064.html" name="january 2000">, and |
| 90 |
|
|
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199911/msg00104.html" name="november 1999"> (old draft discussion). |
| 91 |
|
|
</footnote> |
| 92 |
|
|
are exercised. |
| 93 |
|
|
</list> |
| 94 |
|
|
|
| 95 |
|
|
<p>The following licenses are <em>not</em> recommended since the |
| 96 |
|
|
current consensus is that they are not DFSG-free: |
| 97 |
|
|
|
| 98 |
|
|
<list> |
| 99 |
jfs |
1946 |
<item>The <url id="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html" name="GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)"> |
| 100 |
jfs |
2428 |
In a <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html" name="survey"> done in the debian-legal |
| 101 |
|
|
mailing list most respondents (Debian Developers and non-Debian Developers) |
| 102 |
|
|
answered that this license cannot be considered DFSG-free. |
| 103 |
|
|
Even if some people consider it acceptable provided that |
| 104 |
|
|
there are no Cover Texts or Invariant sections (the |
| 105 |
|
|
<url id="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.html" name="optional features">) documents under this license might not be considered by |
| 106 |
|
|
many Debian developers completely <em>free</em>. |
| 107 |
jfs |
1946 |
<footnote> |
| 108 |
|
|
This has been an issue discussed many times on the debian-legal and |
| 109 |
jfs |
2428 |
debian-doc mailing list. Relevant discussions |
| 110 |
|
|
(sorted chronologically, updated as of september 2003) include: |
| 111 |
jfs |
1946 |
<list> |
| 112 |
jfs |
2368 |
<!-- TODO: it would be nice to priorise this and remote the threads which |
| 113 |
|
|
are not relevant to this discussion or don't provide additional information --> |
| 114 |
jfs |
2428 |
<item>The survey <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01031.html" name="Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?">. |
| 115 |
|
|
<item>The thread <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00563.html" name="A possible approach in solving the FDL problem">. |
| 116 |
jfs |
2368 |
<item>The thread <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200307/msg00001.html" name="GFDL - status?">. |
| 117 |
|
|
<item>The thread <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00240.html" name="The debate on Invariant sections (long)">. |
| 118 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00015.html" name="GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts">. |
| 119 |
|
|
<item>The thread <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00464.html" name="various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL">. |
| 120 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00460.html" name="Comments on GFDL, may be useful for statement">. |
| 121 |
|
|
<item>The <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html" name="Proposed statement with respect to GNU FDL">. |
| 122 |
|
|
<item>The thread <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00181.html" name="Suggestion to maintainers of GFDL docs">. |
| 123 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00285.html" name="FSF has published GNU FDL version 1.2">. |
| 124 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200206/msg00036.html" name="GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD">. |
| 125 |
jfs |
1946 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200204/msg00377.html" name="Should the GFDL bee under /usr/share/common-licenses?">. |
| 126 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200204/msg00482.html" name="The GNU FDL is a free license!"> |
| 127 |
jfs |
1947 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00002.html" name="FDL 1.2 draft comment summary"> |
| 128 |
jfs |
1946 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00079.html" name="Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft"> |
| 129 |
jfs |
1947 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00071.html" name="Comments on GNU FDL 1.2 Draft"> |
| 130 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00450.html" name="[summary] Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3"> |
| 131 |
jfs |
1946 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html" name="Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3"> |
| 132 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00100.html" name="Proposed: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text"> |
| 133 |
|
|
</list> |
| 134 |
|
|
</footnote> |
| 135 |
jfs |
2428 |
This is just a summary of some of the problems, you might want to consider |
| 136 |
jfs |
3552 |
reading <url id="http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html" name="Draft Debian position statement about the GFDL"> |
| 137 |
jfs |
1946 |
</list> |
| 138 |
|
|
|
| 139 |
|
|
<p>It has been discussed many times (such as in |
| 140 |
|
|
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00006.html" |
| 141 |
|
|
name="november 2001"> or |
| 142 |
|
|
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-200010/msg00027.html" name="october 2000"> |
| 143 |
|
|
) wether or not Debian should have guidelines for material which |
| 144 |
jfs |
2368 |
is <strong>not</strong> software. Debian currently does not have such |
| 145 |
|
|
guidelines and thus discussion of licensing as related to non-software content |
| 146 |
|
|
should be taken to the debian-legal mailing list, except for documentation |
| 147 |
|
|
specific licenses which should be discussed at debian-doc first (before going |
| 148 |
|
|
to debian-legal). |
| 149 |
jfs |
1946 |
|
| 150 |
jfs |
2368 |
<p>Some other relevant discussions might be (links updated as of december 2002, |
| 151 |
jfs |
1947 |
sorted in chronological order): |
| 152 |
jfs |
1946 |
|
| 153 |
|
|
<list> |
| 154 |
jfs |
1947 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200201/msg00250.html" name="license requirements for a book to be in free section"> |
| 155 |
jfs |
1946 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00054.html" name="teTex Documentation Licenses"> |
| 156 |
jfs |
1947 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00012.html" name="I want doc-rfc in Woody! (license issues)"> (related to |
| 157 |
|
|
<url id="http://bugs.debian.org/92810" name="Bug #92810">) |
| 158 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00104.html" |
| 159 |
|
|
name="Preprints/Reprints of Academic Papers in Packages"> |
| 160 |
|
|
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200210/msg00097.html" name="Free documentation using non-free preprocessor"> |
| 161 |
jfs |
1946 |
</list> |
| 162 |
|
|
|
Parent Directory
| 
Revision Log