Re: [bug-idutils] idutils documentation license for Debian

[Jim Meyering]

Good point.  I've just amended that patch locally.

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Brad Bosch <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Such a change would indeed solve the problem.  Did you also intend to delete
> or move the text marked by (a) immediately following the section you changed
> since you deleted the reference to it or at least delete the words "Back
> cover text"?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Brad
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for reaching out, Brad.
>>
>> I want to handle this the way it was done for gzip.  Any objection to
>> this change?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Greg McGary <address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>> > I must have had some hand in initial authorship of the info manual,
>> > though
>> > it has been so many years now, I can't say how much it has changed over
>> > the
>> > years.  In any case, I am willing to dual-license whatever might be my
>> > part.
>> >
>> > G
>> >
>> >
>> > On 08/10/13 18:24, Brad Bosch wrote:
>> >
>> > Looks like I had some old email addresses for Jim, Greg, and Tom.  Here
>> > is
>> > another try.  But I can't find another address for Tom.  Is anyone still
>> > in
>> > contact with him?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Brad Bosch <address@hidden>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gentlemen,
>> >>
>> >> I am the Debian developer who has maintained the id-utils package for
>> >> many
>> >> years.  Some time ago, it was brought to my attention that the current
>> >> idutils documentation license is not compatible with Debian policy
>> >> because
>> >> of the invariant first and last pages/section.  I understand that the
>> >> FSF
>> >> has been rather inflexible in this regard with other packages.
>> >>
>> >> The documentation has been removed from recent versions of the package
>> >> to
>> >> allow it to continue to be a part of the Debian distribution, but I
>> >> would
>> >> like to be able to restore it to the package.  I could create a new
>> >> documentation only package and place it in the non-free Debian package
>> >> archive, but this is inconvenient and potentially confusing for users
>> >> and
>> >> extra work for me.  I know that the documentation was once explicitly
>> >> not
>> >> copyrighted, so I suppose I could also locate and adopt an older
>> >> version,
>> >> but this is clearly not ideal and also involves duplicated effort to
>> >> update
>> >> the old version to some extent.
>> >>
>> >> I understand that the FSF allows authors to dual license their work
>> >> under
>> >> the GPL.  I am unsure if all of you are considered document authors or
>> >> even
>> >> if I may have missed someone.  Can you clarify the actual authorship of
>> >> the
>> >> document for me please?  If you are a copyright worthy author, are you
>> >> willing to dual-license your idutils documentation under some version
>> >> of the
>> >> GPL?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance for any help you can provide in this matter!
>> >>
>> >> --Brad Bosch
>> >> address@hidden
>> >> address@hidden
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>