[Fwd: Licensing Policy for non-code?]

[Philippe Cloutier]

I'm not subscribed to the list and am replying "manually". Sorry if that 
breaks the thread.

Kevin Krammer wrote:

> It's not a matter of linking, it's matter of allowing modification and 
> redistribution (also of a modified version)
> 
> Another area where this can lead to problems is documentation, since the GNU 
> FDL allows unmodifyable sections. If I remember correctly KDE's documentation 
> contains a special clause that it is GFDL but does not contain such sections.
This is great. I still wonder if this freeness is just a tradition or if there's a policy about doc licensing.
> 
> I think the main reason why this is important for Debian is that quite some 
> portion of their users are also distributors (Ubuntu, Xandros, etc, or custom 
> distributions like Munich's LiMux)

No, the main reason why this is important is item 1 of the Debian Social Contract. "We will allow others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and other works, without any fee from us." is almost an accessory clause in comparison with item 1. "Distributors" (or downstreams) like Canonical and Xandros (which has no significant market share anyway) are a non-significant part of Debian "users".