[Ichthux-devel] Penguin in the Pew Available

[Troy A. Griffitts]

I'm a little confused here by this issue.

I don't think PitP is the most offending text.
 From Ben's arguments, it sounds like absolutely no text resources 
available for the SWORD engine could be included, as well.

I think Debian needs to rethink their maturing stance on documentation 
while it is still in its infancy.

For example, I would hope to be able to include my _purpose statement_ 
in a document on a CD and expect it to remain unchanged.  It is my point 
of view.  No one else has the authority to change my _purpose 
statement_.  They are welcome to copy, adopt, and adapt my point of view 
as their own, or not, but I expect my posted purpose statement to remain 
unchanged by the community, at large.  And if Debian wants to include my 
GPL'd software, which has a clause that says my purpose statement must 
accompany the software unchanged, then Debian should be able to include 
my software.

Thoughts?
	-Troy.



Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On 5/4/05, Don Parris <evangelinux at thefreelyproject.org> wrote:
> 
>>Hmmm.  If I get the opportunity, I'll try to follow up on this this evening.
>> I *can* dual-license the book.  As far as I know, it's not too late to
>>reconsider the licensing altogether.  No one has purchased the book -
>>download or print - that I'm aware of.  I have not approved the review copy
>>of the printed edition either.
>>
>>Which of the CC licenses meet the DFSG?  Is that covered in the docs you've
>>linked me to?
> 
> 
> None of them in their current state.  And no, that is not covered in
> those docs.  But there is some info here about debian-legal's
> recommendations regarding CC licenses:
> 
> http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
> 
> This excerpt from that summary indicates that with some changes, some
> CC licenses would meet the DFSG:
> 
> "The Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses, however, seem to
> be intended to make works Free in a way compatible with the DFSG. For
> this reason, we make the following suggestions for future versions of
> the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses that, barring
> other changes, should make the licenses compatible with the DFSG."
> 
> So if CreativeCommons follows those suggestions and make new versions
> of these licenses, you might be able to license your books with CC
> licenses in future.
> 
> As much as it would be nice to have a made-for-books license
> compatible with the DFSG, the simplest thing to do is to examine the
> GPL, LGPL, BSD, Artistic etc. and see if any of these fit your needs. 
> Debian does not list a comprehensive page of licenses passing the
> DFSG, basically because it is an impossible task.  "Free" licenses are
> being created and modified daily, and many variants exist of the main
> ones as well.  Each version of each license needs to be individually
> measured against the DFSG.  That being said, you could start here if
> you need ideas:
> 
> http://wiki.debian.net/?DFSGLicenses
> 
> Also, you might find this page interesting:
> 
> http://jacobo.tarrio.org/Documentation_licensing_FAQ
> 
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ichthux-devel mailing list
> Ichthux-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/ichthux-devel