[pkg-kde-talk] Re: [kde-doc-english] Debian, KDE and the GFDL problem

[Isaac Clerencia]

On Sunday, 8 January 2006 02:28, Lauri Watts wrote:
> On Saturday 07 January 2006 13:39, Lauri Watts wrote:
> > On Saturday 07 January 2006 11:31, Brad Hards wrote:
> > > On Thursday 05 January 2006 19:47 pm, Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> > > > 2) Convince manual authors to a) relicense their works under the GPL,
> > > > or b) double-license them under both the GFDL and GPL.
>
> I have some questions:
> 1: Would Debian accept something like the BSD documentation license (with
> or without the copyright notice requirements) as an alternative dual
> license to the GPL?
Yes, that license is acceptable by Debian.

> 2: Would Debian accept an exception clause along the lines of the Qt
> license exception clause, excising the objectionable parts of the FDL?
Well, I guess it would be enough, although I'm not sure about it. I will ask 
debian-legal at lists.debian.org about it.

> 3: Specifically are there any other licenses I didn't mention (and which
> versions of those licenses) that are acceptable to Debian as either
>   3a: The sole license on a document, or
>   3b: A dual license along with FDL as we use it today.
After having a look at debian-legal at lists.debian.org archives it looks like 
there are three documentation licenses considered "free" by Debian just now:
a) The FreeBSD documentation license that you asked about in 1)
b) The Linux Documentation Project License v 2.0: 
http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html
c) Sun's documentation license (used by OpenOffice.org):
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/pdl.pdf

Best regards and thank you :)

-- 
Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es
Work: <isaac at warp.es>   | Debian: <isaac at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20060108/01b4a5cb/attachment.pgp