Re: Overview of copyright issues + Debian

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond
> > which are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things
> > like input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it
> > cannot be modified.[2])
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, isn't that file only used for a regression
> test? How does that affect the situation?

It doesn't really change the situation for me, as I have to strip it
out of the tarball, but it presumably doesn't affect the binary
packages that I distribute.

That's because everything Debian distributes has to satisfy the DFSG;
whether that's an issue for you all is for you all to decide. [What
would be really super for me is if during this process, those files
which had non-free licenses were identified (and a conscious effort
was made to identify any new ones) so that I could easily remove
them.]
 
> > I'd personally prefer it if documentation was at least licensed
> > under the same license as the code to allow for easily inclusion
> > of code examples (and to obviate the problems I [and Debian] have
> > with specific aspects of the GFDL.) It certainly can be dual
> > licensed under GFDL >= v1.1 + GPL >= v2, though.
> 
> AFAIK the docs have always been GFDLv1.1 -- I don't think we can
> unilaterally relicense them. Can you clarify the particular issue
> with GFDL? I thought the Debian consensus was that GFDL is OK as
> long as there are no invariant sections.

Right. There are some other bits of the GFDL that I personally don't
like too, but so long as there aren't invariant sections it's ok.

> What does GPL imply for docs? Would it mean e.g. that someone who
> distributes a PDF of the Learning Manual would have to also be
> prepared to provide Texinfo sources?

What I'm suggesting is that they be dual-licensed, so that someone who
wanted to comply with the GFDL could do so, and alternatively, they
could comply with the GPL instead. If they were *only* under the GPL,
you're correct that someone distributing a PDF would also have to be
prepared to provide the source code. [Though, under the GFDL, you may
need to if you are copying in quantity, since the PDF is probably
"Opaque".]


Don Armstrong

-- 
Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they
have exhausted all other possibilities.
 -- W. Churchill

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu