gdb-doc package in non-free repository

[Jason Filippou]

Hi,

I was wondering whether there was any sort of explanation for this.
The way I see it here:

http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gdb-doc

gdb-doc is situated in the non-free repository for all branches,
whereas gdb is free software and, as such, included within the main
repository.

Thanks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[John Hasler]

Jason Filippou writes:
> I was wondering whether there was any sort of explanation for this.

>From /usr/share/doc/gdb/README.Debian:

  GDB is a complex program.  There is an excellent Info manual (`info
  gdb'), which is available in the separate gdb-doc package.  gdb-doc is
  not part of Debian main; it is available in the non-free distribution
  (because it is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License).

The manual contains "invariant" sections and so does not comply with the
DFSG.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.-3]

On Friday 06 November 2009 10:42:21 Jason Filippou wrote:
> I was wondering whether there was any sort of explanation for this.
> The way I see it here:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gdb-doc
>
> gdb-doc is situated in the non-free repository for all branches,
> whereas gdb is free software and, as such, included within the main
> repository.

The license used for the GDB documentation is the GNU FDL, with the GNU
Manifesto being an invariant section. The GNU FDL is not DFSG-free when the
option to include invariant sections is used.  In addition, debian-legal has
other issues with the GNU FDL and recommends against its use.  Debian
recommends that you license your documentation under the same license as the
source code.  At the very least, this allows examples to be put in the
documentation that are based on (or copied directly from) the source code.

I think a google search using the keywords "Debian GNU-free-documentation-
license" should give you some good hits for further reading.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.           ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@...             ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/            \_/

[John Hasler]

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. writes:
> In addition, debian-legal has other issues with the GNU FDL and
> recommends against its use.

It's a wonky license, but absent "invariant sections" or "cover texts"
it is DFSG-compliant.

> At the very least, this allows examples to be put in the documentation
> that are based on (or copied directly from) the source code.

That would be fair use and so legal no matter what the licenses.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.-3]

On Friday 06 November 2009 11:28:53 John Hasler wrote:
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. writes:
> > In addition, debian-legal has other issues with the GNU FDL and
> > recommends against its use.
>
> It's a wonky license, but absent "invariant sections" or "cover texts"
> it is DFSG-compliant.

I seem to remember issues about "opaque" vs. "transparent" forms of
distributions being really poorly defined, but is why there were some
recommendations against it.  I hoped I was clear that the license, as long as
you don't use the "invariant sections" or "cover texts" parts, was DFSG-free
-- just not a good license for other reasons.

It's not worth the effort required to change licenses if you are using the GNU
FDL and would have to locate contributors, but you probably shouldn't use the
license for new documentation that you are wanting to get into Debian.  It
would be better to match the license the software it documents, as long as
your are clear on how the terms in the licenses apply to your work (of
documentation).

> > At the very least, this allows examples to be put in the documentation
> > that are based on (or copied directly from) the source code.
>
> That would be fair use and so legal no matter what the licenses.

We'll have to agree to disagree here; I don't believe there's legal precedent
for your statement or the contrary.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.           ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@...             ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/            \_/