[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: [Fwd: Licensing Policy for non-code?]
From:       Philippe Cloutier <philippe.cloutier.2 () ulaval ! ca>
Date:       2006-10-25 6:38:03
Message-ID: 453F064B.6090908 () ulaval ! ca
[Download RAW message or body]

I'm not subscribed to the list and am replying "manually". Sorry if that 
breaks the thread.

Kevin Krammer wrote:

> It's not a matter of linking, it's matter of allowing modification and 
> redistribution (also of a modified version)
> 
> Another area where this can lead to problems is documentation, since the GNU 
> FDL allows unmodifyable sections. If I remember correctly KDE's documentation 
> contains a special clause that it is GFDL but does not contain such sections.
This is great. I still wonder if this freeness is just a tradition or if there's a \
policy about doc licensing.
> 
> I think the main reason why this is important for Debian is that quite some 
> portion of their users are also distributors (Ubuntu, Xandros, etc, or custom 
> distributions like Munich's LiMux)

No, the main reason why this is important is item 1 of the Debian Social Contract. \
"We will allow others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and \
other works, without any fee from us." is almost an accessory clause in comparison \
with item 1. "Distributors" (or downstreams) like Canonical and Xandros (which has no \
significant market share anyway) are a non-significant part of Debian "users".


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]