#281639 [NONFREE-DOC:GFDL1.1ol] documentation is non-free

Package:
sed
Source:
sed
Description:
GNU stream editor for filtering/transforming text
Submitter:
"brian m. carlson"
Date:
2023-06-11 15:39:11 UTC
Severity:
normal
Tags:
#281639#5
Date:
2004-11-17 00:59:24 UTC
From:
To:
The GNU Free Documentation License is non-free; please either (a) remove
the documentation from the package or (b) move the documentation to a
separate source package in non-free. Thank you.
#281639#10
Date:
2004-11-17 02:31:50 UTC
From:
To:
Paolo, is there any chance of changing the sed manual license?
#281639#15
Date:
2004-11-17 08:03:16 UTC
From:
To:
Clint Adams wrote:

The manual is free as long as there are no invariant sections, isn't it?

Paolo
#281639#20
Date:
2004-11-17 01:45:44 UTC
From:
To:
tags 281639 sarge-ignore
thanks

You are not required to do this for sarge.
#281639#27
Date:
2004-11-17 16:43:30 UTC
From:
To:
I think there was a consensus previously that the GNU FDL was free as
long as there were no Invariant Sections or Cover Texts.

I think the current consensus may be as is described at
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml .

This issue gets an exemption for the sarge release policy,
http://release.debian.org/sarge_rc_policy.txt .

Hopefully Mr. Carlson will jump in here if I've completely failed to
understand the issue.

If the documentation could be relicensed under the GPL, or dual-licensed
under the GPL and FDL, I think everyone might be satisfied.  I could be
mistaken about this as well.
#281639#32
Date:
2004-11-17 19:30:44 UTC
From:
To:
Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:

Yes, I did. Fixed.
#281639#37
Date:
2004-11-17 19:53:21 UTC
From:
To:
They have tagged it sarge-ignore already.

I would prefer a relicensing over removing the docs, I think.
#281639#48
Date:
2006-01-06 13:11:25 UTC
From:
To:
Hello again Paulo -- and hi Ken.

For the sed docs to be considered free enough for Debian main, it would be
best if they were dual-licensed under the GPL as well as the GFDL (since the
GFDL is problematic).

This can be done in one of two ways:
(1) getting the FSF to agree to it
(Getting the FSF to agree to any such changes has proven difficult for what I
can only describe as political reasons.)
OR
(2) getting all the copyright-worthy contributors to agree to it

I checked with the FSF a while back, and under the copyright assignments we
fill out for the FSF, we retain the right to dual-license our contributions
under the GPL.

It appears that the only contributors of significant amounts to the manual are
you two (Paolo Bonzini and Ken Pizzini).

So, if you two are both willing to dual-license the manual under the GPL,
please say so!  It would be ideal if dual-licensing statements went in the
upstream package, but we could also just put your statements in the debian
package.

GFDL-only docs are being removed from Debian "main" for the next release,
until we can work out the little "bugs" in the license with the FSF (which is
taking much longer than it should), and it would be nice if we could keep the
sed docs in Debian main.

Sincerely,
  Nathanael Nerode
#281639#53
Date:
2006-01-12 14:11:34 UTC
From:
To:
I am pleased to say that both of the authors of the sed manual have agreed to
dual-license it under the GPL.  A notice to this effect should be present in
the next upstream release of sed.

In the meantime you can use these quotes from their emails in reply to the
message with the subject "Would you consider dual-licensing the sed docs?",
which is preserved earlier in the bug trail:

(Paolo Bonzini)
(The answer was that I couldn't find one, but I suggested some boilerplate
to him.)

(Ken Pizzini)

So, one RC bug nearly done.
#281639#58
Date:
2006-01-13 00:40:33 UTC
From:
To:
Excellent.
#281639#69
Date:
2012-12-02 22:43:13 UTC
From:
To:
* Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>, 2004-11-17, 11:43:

Indeed. So the bug should be closed...

...or, if someone still cares about dual-licensing, retitled.
#281639#78
Date:
2017-02-24 06:33:03 UTC
From:
To:
Hello,

If it helps in any way, the documentation in sed-4.4 (included in
'stretch') as licensed under GFDLv1.3 and explicitly states:

  "with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no
   Back-Cover Texts."

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/sed.git/tree/doc/sed.texi#n39

regards,
 - assaf
#281639#89
Date:
2022-06-27 14:12:07 UTC
From:
To:
Control: tags -1 - stretch buster bullseye bookworm

I suggest to close this bug. It is fixed since stretch.