Documentation Licensing

Gervase Markham gerv at
Thu May 6 22:36:42 UTC 2004

Barnboy wrote:
> 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 :)

Er... the freeness or non-freeness of licenses, both for code and 
documentation, is important. (As is the choice of the correct 
programming language for a particular task, for that matter.) If it 
weren't important, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

> 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.  

That's not true. They have other objections to the GFDL beside the 
invariant sections, and Bugzilla's docs will end up in nonfree if they 
act on the resolution they just passed.


More information about the developers mailing list