[tex-live] License auditing: Consequences
frank at kuesterei.ch
Thu Sep 7 09:29:12 CEST 2006
Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Martin Schröder wrote:
>>> Since Debian does not view documentation separately from software, it
>>> is not surprising that they don't consider GFDL free.
>> The pdfTeX manual is currently licensed under the GFDL (it seemed a
>> good idea then). What are the preferred alternatives? Not GPL or BSD,
> Creative Commons ShareAlike
At least in the english version, there are some phrases that make Debian
folks uncomfortable (I hear the scottish version is okay, but then I
don't like the idea of having versions of a license for global
distributions that are not only translated to other languages, but also
jurisdictions - the scottish one is in english, too...). But CC will
soon release a draft for a new version that addresses Debian folks'
concerns, at least so I have been told.
If that happens, this new version might be a better alternative than
GFDL without invariant sections, since it still has its flaws (overly
broad anti-DRM clause, etc.)
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
More information about the tex-live