| 1 |
<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much out-of-date).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 |
document and then, if it exists, the localization team for the language
|
| 12 |
the translator wants to translate too. This helps authors keep track
|
| 13 |
of who is translating the document (in case somebody else volunteers)
|
| 14 |
and also prevents for duplicate effort (maybe somebody in the localization
|
| 15 |
team is currently translating it and has not contacted the main author).
|
| 16 |
</p>
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
<sect>Licensing documents
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
<p>All documention of the Debian Documentation Project (DDP) must be
|
| 21 |
released under a free license (free to use, modify and distribute).
|
| 22 |
<footnote>
|
| 23 |
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 |
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 |
</footnote>
|
| 32 |
for the Debian project to use. This is true not only for documentation provided
|
| 33 |
by the DDP authors themselves but for documentation provided in the Debian
|
| 34 |
operating system by packages (including FAQs, manpages, help pages, etc.).</P>
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
<P>The <em>recommended</em> license for any (new) document in Debian is the
|
| 38 |
GNU General Public License
|
| 39 |
<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 |
This is a copyleft license for documentation.
|
| 44 |
More often than not, documentation is directly dependant to software used
|
| 45 |
by Debian and thus has to be modified under the same conditions. This applies
|
| 46 |
to technical documentation that is related to software. It might not fully
|
| 47 |
apply to other kind of documents, but since documentation licenses are at
|
| 48 |
still at their infancy (most are under heavy discussion) the GPL is preferred
|
| 49 |
since documentation which uses it is clearly <em>free</em> in the DFSG sense.
|
| 50 |
</p>
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
<p>Authors might wish to add the optional addition of explanatory text (text
|
| 53 |
which is not part of the license) explaining that the author believes the
|
| 54 |
preferred form for making modifications (i.e., source) to be an electronic
|
| 55 |
version in the original format. This helps disambiguate the license while
|
| 56 |
at the same time preserving it and making the document copyleft.</p>
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
<p>Note however that some other documentation licenses are acceptable too. The
|
| 59 |
following licenses have been deemed as acceptable for documentation in
|
| 60 |
Debian:</p>
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
<p>
|
| 63 |
<list>
|
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
<item>The <url id="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php" name="MIT license">. Which is a non-copyleft license.
|
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
<item>The <url id="http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html"
|
| 68 |
name="FreeBSD Documentation License"> is acceptable. Just make sure that you
|
| 69 |
adapt it to your document by changing the project name and the source format.
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
<item>The Linux Documentation Project (LDP)
|
| 73 |
<url id="http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html" name="Linux Documentation Project License v2.0"> is
|
| 74 |
acceptable (as discussed in the
|
| 75 |
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0305/msg00282.html"
|
| 76 |
name="debian-legal mailing list">), notice that this is not the same as
|
| 77 |
the boilerplate license suggested in the
|
| 78 |
<url id="http://www.tldp.org/manifesto.html" name="TLDP manifesto"> which
|
| 79 |
is, on it's own, non-free because it requires new versions to be sent to the
|
| 80 |
TLDP.
|
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
<item><url id="http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/pdl.pdf" name="Sun's documentation license">
|
| 83 |
(used by OpenOffice) is also acceptable (as discussed in the
|
| 84 |
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200208/msg00267.html"
|
| 85 |
name="debian-legal mailing list">)
|
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
</list>
|
| 88 |
</p>
|
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
<p>There is not yet a full consensus for the following licenses and
|
| 91 |
document authors are recommended not to use them:
|
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
<list>
|
| 94 |
|
| 95 |
|
| 96 |
<item>The <url id="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html" name="GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)">, as long as there are no unmodifiable sections. As
|
| 97 |
voted by Debian Developers in a <url id="http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001" name="General Resolution">.
|
| 98 |
Note, however, that in a <url
|
| 99 |
id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html"
|
| 100 |
name="survey"> done in the debian-legal mailing list most respondents (Debian
|
| 101 |
Developers and non-Debian Developers) answered that this license cannot be
|
| 102 |
considered DFSG-free. Even if some people consider it acceptable provided that
|
| 103 |
there are no Cover Texts or Invariant sections (the
|
| 104 |
<url id="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.html" name="optional features">) documents under this license might not be considered by
|
| 105 |
many Debian developers completely <em>free</em>.
|
| 106 |
<footnote>
|
| 107 |
This has been an issue discussed many times on the debian-legal and
|
| 108 |
debian-doc mailing list. Relevant discussions
|
| 109 |
(sorted chronologically, updated as of september 2003) include:
|
| 110 |
<list>
|
| 111 |
<!-- TODO: it would be nice to priorise this and remote the threads which
|
| 112 |
are not relevant to this discussion or don't provide additional information -->
|
| 113 |
<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?">.
|
| 114 |
<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">.
|
| 115 |
<item>The thread <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200307/msg00001.html" name="GFDL - status?">.
|
| 116 |
<item>The thread <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00240.html" name="The debate on Invariant sections (long)">.
|
| 117 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00015.html" name="GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts">.
|
| 118 |
<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">.
|
| 119 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00460.html" name="Comments on GFDL, may be useful for statement">.
|
| 120 |
<item>The <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html" name="Proposed statement with respect to GNU FDL">.
|
| 121 |
<item>The thread <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00181.html" name="Suggestion to maintainers of GFDL docs">.
|
| 122 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00285.html" name="FSF has published GNU FDL version 1.2">.
|
| 123 |
<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">.
|
| 124 |
<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?">.
|
| 125 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200204/msg00482.html" name="The GNU FDL is a free license!">
|
| 126 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00002.html" name="FDL 1.2 draft comment summary">
|
| 127 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00079.html" name="Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft">
|
| 128 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00071.html" name="Comments on GNU FDL 1.2 Draft">
|
| 129 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00450.html" name="[summary] Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3">
|
| 130 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html" name="Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3">
|
| 131 |
<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">
|
| 132 |
</list>
|
| 133 |
</footnote>
|
| 134 |
This is just a summary of some of the problems, you might want to consider
|
| 135 |
reading <url id="http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html" name="Draft Debian position statement about the GFDL">
|
| 136 |
|
| 137 |
</list>
|
| 138 |
|
| 139 |
<p>The following licenses are <em>not</em> recommended since the
|
| 140 |
current consensus is that they are not DFSG-free:
|
| 141 |
|
| 142 |
<list>
|
| 143 |
|
| 144 |
<item>The <url id="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/" name="Creative
|
| 145 |
Commons Licenses">, version 2.0 or 2.5
|
| 146 |
<footnote>
|
| 147 |
<p>There is a workgroup to try to make the license version 3.0 compatible
|
| 148 |
with the DFSG, as <url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00051.html" name="reported in debian-legal">.
|
| 149 |
</footnote>
|
| 150 |
. For more information see the <url
|
| 151 |
id="http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html" name="debian-legal
|
| 152 |
summary">.
|
| 153 |
|
| 154 |
<item>The <url id="http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/" name="Open Publication License (OPL)">
|
| 155 |
even if none of the license options
|
| 156 |
<footnote>
|
| 157 |
Some people think that some sections, such as IV.2, IV.4 and IV.5 might
|
| 158 |
be too restrictive, and IV.3 might be more specific than needed. However,
|
| 159 |
this license was discussed in the debian-legal mailing list in
|
| 160 |
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00173.html" name="october 2001">,
|
| 161 |
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-200001/msg00064.html" name="january 2000">, and
|
| 162 |
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/debian-legal-199911/msg00104.html" name="november 1999"> (old draft discussion).
|
| 163 |
</footnote>
|
| 164 |
are exercised. For more information see
|
| 165 |
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00226.html">.
|
| 166 |
|
| 167 |
</list>
|
| 168 |
|
| 169 |
<p>It has been discussed many times (such as in
|
| 170 |
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00006.html"
|
| 171 |
name="november 2001"> or
|
| 172 |
<url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-200010/msg00027.html" name="october 2000">
|
| 173 |
) wether or not Debian should have guidelines for material which
|
| 174 |
is <strong>not</strong> software. Debian currently does not have such
|
| 175 |
guidelines and thus discussion of licensing as related to non-software content
|
| 176 |
should be taken to the debian-legal mailing list, except for documentation
|
| 177 |
specific licenses which should be discussed at debian-doc first (before going
|
| 178 |
to debian-legal).
|
| 179 |
|
| 180 |
<p>Some other relevant discussions might be (links updated as of december 2002,
|
| 181 |
sorted in chronological order):
|
| 182 |
|
| 183 |
<list>
|
| 184 |
<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">
|
| 185 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00054.html" name="teTex Documentation Licenses">
|
| 186 |
<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
|
| 187 |
<url id="http://bugs.debian.org/92810" name="Bug #92810">)
|
| 188 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/msg00104.html"
|
| 189 |
name="Preprints/Reprints of Academic Papers in Packages">
|
| 190 |
<item><url id="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200210/msg00097.html" name="Free documentation using non-free preprocessor">
|
| 191 |
</list>
|
| 192 |
|
Parent Directory
| 
Revision Log