[tex-live] License auditing: Consequences

[Frank Küster]

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,
>> please.
>>
>>   
> 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.)

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)