Documentation Licensing

[Barnboy]

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:34:02AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> Except that anyone can add an invariant section to their derived work, 
> thus allowing it to become non-free.

Yep, that's part of the fun discussion on Debian-legal.  I'm still sorting
through some archives, but it sure seems as if it's simply become a holy
war, arguing over free vs. non-free status of licenses... it's like arguing
over programming languages :)

Regardless, it seems that Bugzilla is in Debian-stable, and not in
Debian-nonfree.  If we require that the core Bugzilla docs not make use of
invariant sections, we will remain there.  Yeah, people could be obnoxious
and put invarianet sections in forked documentation, but under BSD-style
licenses, you face the same problem.  Just a different symptom :)

It might be worthwhile to put a note in the BZ Guide basically stating that
"any CVS documentation submissions must not alter the GFDL licensing
scheme, specifically no invariant sections or cover texts may be
specified."  And leave it at that -- if someone really wants to fork and
create invariant sections, that becomes their closed-off doc fork without
possibility of landing back in the main tree.

-- 
Matthew P. Barnson
- - - -
Thought for the moment:
Santa Claus wears a Red Suit,
	He must be a communist.
And a beard and long hair,
	Must be a pacifist.

	What's in that pipe that he's smoking?
		-- Arlo Guthrie