[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL
From: |
Bernd Warken |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:54:43 +0100 (CET) |
This mail goes to the Debian admins. I think that's mostly
Colin Watson.
> Von: "Bernd Warken" <address@hidden>
>
> The groff source tree is usually licensed to GPL. That is excellent.
>
> But there are also some documents under the GNU FDL. This is regarded
> as bad by Debian. Many years ago, Debian made the groff package as
> non-free because of the FDL. So I changed many documentation files in
> the groff tree to GPL.
>
> In 2006, Debian made a voting wether the FDL should become free
> software:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001.en.html
>
> They decided that the FDL without invariant sections would be compatible
> with Debian.
Can you tell us what Debian says today about using FDL (without
invariant sections), especially for GNU projects like groff.
Bernd Warken
- [Groff] GPL or FDL, Bernd Warken, 2013/01/24
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/24
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL,
Bernd Warken <=
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Colin Watson, 2013/01/24
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, walter harms, 2013/01/25
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Colin Watson, 2013/01/25
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Bernd Warken, 2013/01/25
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/25
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Bernd Warken, 2013/01/25
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Daode, 2013/01/25
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/01/26
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Daode, 2013/01/26
- Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL, Tadziu Hoffmann, 2013/01/26