The LDP and Debian

Guylhem writes: "The former LDP license was the first license used for our documentation. While we are now recommending the GNU FDL and the OPL 1 without options A or B, many documents are still licensed under the LDPL. David Merril, our Collection Coordinator, noticed that the LDPL is "not free" according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have to get in touch with the authors as soon as possible or 2/3 of the LDP document collection will be removed from the base Debian distribution because the code freeze is happening in 2 days. Maybe some of the LDP unreachable authors are reading slashdot and could take 1 minute to submit an updated document licensed under the FDL or OPL v1 -A -B ? Another solution is to find volunteers to rewrite from scratch the concerned documents."

Comments

am I the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

who is *so tired* of hearing about how some free license is sublty not free enough for somebody else's purposes? This self-important bullshit ought to stop: It's not a big deal, get back to hacking code.

"RTFM!"..."I'd like to but I'm running Debian..."

[SexPig]

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm quite pleased with my Debian distribution but I'm also tired of the RMS-like stubborness in regards to licensing and such. If this stuff continues I may move off to a different distribution (my friend says Slackware is shipping with 2.4 kernels!....hehehe).

While I'm not overly concerned about the docs not being on the medium, perhaps there are those who are installing at a single-computer home without access to the internet. This "conform to our license or else get booted from the dist" is extreme.

Re:Yes

[Ledge]

Thats phrase is pretty much boilerplate for non-mission critical commercial software I think. the StarOffice license contains the same line. I think it also makes reference to usage in lifesaving devices and medical equipment as well.

It restricts derived works.

[mindstrm]

It requires derived works to be labeled as such, and credit to the original authors be given, and several other things along those lines.

Now.. those are all fair, and nice.. but are in conflict with the 'free software' guidelines.

I still maintian, though, Documentation is not Software... and to treat it by the same standards is wrong.

I hate licensing....

[Cesaro]

I know I'm being completely unreasonable, but wouldn't it be grand to stop dealing with so much legal mumbo-jumbo and lining the pockets of scores of lawyers who end up making bucks off of licensing disputes?

Is human and corporate morality so lacking that we REALLY need this stuff? I don't do much with licensing myself and if I start to I hope to god it isn't as bad as it seems. If someone is only asking for credit, and not giving them a bad name, is it really violated that often? I mean, I present my source code, and just say "Use it, if you change it or want to distribute it let me know." I think that should be more than sufficient. This licensing crap just seems like it is merely a leading indicator of our complete inability to regulate ourselves on a personal and ethical level.

Perhaps it's just me dreaming about a non-defunct human race, but step back for a second and take a moment to realize how pitiful this truly is.

thank you

[FreeUser]

And what code do you hack? I'm getting rather tired of self-important Slashdot posters who feel that these slackers should go back in the kitchen and bake some pie. We, the coders of various open source and/or free software applications write the code for our own reasons. If you don't like the code or don't feel that it's up to your standards/schedules, then don't use it. We'll be just as happy either way.

Thank you.

As one who uses debian (testing + some unstable packages compiled from source) at both work and home extensively I, for one, appreciate all that the debian developers do, and the fact that they are so precise (some might say pedantic) about software and documentation licenses. In this way I, as a system administrator, have a very easy time keeping my employer compliant to any and all licenses. Come audit time, that is a very nice feeling indeed.

So yes, we who work in the real world with Free Software, Open Source, and commercial products in fact benefit very directly and very immediately from such vigilence, and I for one appreciate it greatly.

Yes, catching this faux pas earlier in the release cycle would have been nice, but for whatever reason that did not happen. Oh well. So the packages move from main to non-free. They're still available if they're really needed, but for those of us in commercial environments using GNU/Linux for something other than hobbiest tinkering such distinctions are well founded and important, and having that explicit division between free (as in freedom) and non-free (as in restricted in some significant fashion) is immensly helpful, even critical.

...or rewrite from scratch

[brassman]

Ouch. Someone once came to my modest how-to site, then sent me a screed worthy of RMS demanding that I contribute it to the LDP. I went there, found out that in order to do so I would have to learn LinuxDoc or SGML, and promptly lost all interest.

It's a pity; I think I have a knack for creating usable documentation (and it's safer than asking me to write kernel patches, anyway); but that's one flaming hoop too many to jump through.