--nextPart1361831.I0n2n3kUNF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Ben on IRC reminded me one thing we should do ... that is : parsing=20 packages through to list licenses ... and the thing is, most of the HandBooks are GFDL... do you know if anything has been done with upstreams wrt that ? should=20 we raise the question on a kde list ? if yes on wich list ? =2D-=20 =B7O=B7 Pierre Habouzit =B7=B7O OOO http://www.madism.org --nextPart1361831.I0n2n3kUNF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCKjNevGr7W6HudhwRAo2yAJ9HXDBxOHCAe2Xi+LmfYSsljq94+wCggxUA eP1LBqCOxTUWEijUPY2+H5M=eA8Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1361831.I0n2n3kUNF--
El S=E1bado, 5 de Marzo de 2005 23:31, Pierre Habouzit escribi=F3:> Ben on IRC reminded me one thing we should do ... that is : parsing > packages through to list licenses ... > > and the thing is, most of the HandBooks are GFDL... > > do you know if anything has been done with upstreams wrt that ? should > we raise the question on a kde list ? if yes on wich list ?Have you been talking about this on IRC? Well, anyway, my comments: Possible lists to ask about this: =2D kde-doc-english, for docu writers, and the related software =2D kde-i18n-doc, for translators (their work is also licensed under GFDL, so=20 they will be interested in that, too) =2D kde-licensing or kde-core-devel My suggestion: wait. :-( Unfortunately, and if I''m not mistaken, creative commons and open publication=20 license are also non-free:=20 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00226.html http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html So if we can not propose any alternative license (for documentation), I don''t=20 know what can be done. :-( =2D-=20 Alex (a.k.a. suy) - GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2 http://darkshines.net/ - Jabber ID: suy@bulmalug.net
El Lunes 07 Marzo 2005 17:08, Alejandro Exojo escribi=F3:> El S=E1bado, 5 de Marzo de 2005 23:31, Pierre Habouzit escribi=F3: > > Ben on IRC reminded me one thing we should do ... that is : parsing > > packages through to list licenses ... > > > > and the thing is, most of the HandBooks are GFDL... > > > > do you know if anything has been done with upstreams wrt that ? should > > we raise the question on a kde list ? if yes on wich list ? > > Have you been talking about this on IRC? Well, anyway, my comments: > > Possible lists to ask about this: > - kde-doc-english, for docu writers, and the related software > - kde-i18n-doc, for translators (their work is also licensed under GFDL, so > they will be interested in that, too) > - kde-licensing or kde-core-devel > > My suggestion: wait. :-( > > Unfortunately, and if I''m not mistaken, creative commons and open > publication license are also non-free: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00226.html > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html > > So if we can not propose any alternative license (for documentation), I > don''t know what can be done. :-(The most valuable part in KDE, the code, is LGPL. Then, why not suggest make=20 the doc LGPL too?
El Lunes, 7 de Marzo de 2005 18:59, Mat=EDas Costa escribi=F3:> > So if we can not propose any alternative license (for documentation), I^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> > don''t know what can be done. :-( > > The most valuable part in KDE, the code, is LGPL. Then, why not suggest > make the doc LGPL too?IMHO, because it''s not a license designed for documentation. =2D-=20 Alex (a.k.a. suy) - GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2 http://darkshines.net/ - Jabber ID: suy@bulmalug.net
El Lunes 07 Marzo 2005 20:18, Alejandro Exojo escribi=F3:> El Lunes, 7 de Marzo de 2005 18:59, Mat=EDas Costa escribi=F3: > > > So if we can not propose any alternative license (for documentation), I > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > don''t know what can be done. :-( > > > > The most valuable part in KDE, the code, is LGPL. Then, why not suggest > > make the doc LGPL too? > > IMHO, because it''s not a license designed for documentation.=46rom the faq: Q: I''m writing documentation to accompany a free program. What license should=20 I use for this documentation?=20 A: We strongly suggest you use the same license as used for the program. Then=20 it will be possible to take code and put it into the documentation, and vice=20 versa. I know a faq is not a law, but seems all doc-licenses are not DFSG friendly=2E I=20 thought the CC but looks like this one neither is good for debian. =BFMay be=20 dual licensing FDL/LGPL?
--nextPart1531409.jU7hUoO2Bt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline> > > > don''t know what can be done. :-( > > > > > > The most valuable part in KDE, the code, is LGPL. Then, why not > > > suggest make the doc LGPL too? > > > > IMHO, because it''s not a license designed for documentation.I don''t see why ... sure, the ''link'' part are not very obvious for documentation. so maybe=20 GPL or an BSD style is better.> I know a faq is not a law, but seems all doc-licenses are not DFSG > friendly. I thought the CC but looks like this one neither is good > for debian. =BFMay be dual licensing FDL/LGPL?I never understood how this is possible to dual-license sth. can I=20 choose the license I prefer when I take the work under both licenses ?=20 or does the author choose for me under which he gives me his work ? or=20 does both apply ? how do you merge ? moreover, GFDL is not (L)GPL compliant AFAIK, so it''s very curious. but if that''s possible, and enough for DFSG ... then maybe it''s the=20 solution =2D-=20 =B7O=B7 Pierre Habouzit =B7=B7O OOO http://www.madism.org --nextPart1531409.jU7hUoO2Bt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCLNYavGr7W6HudhwRAqnFAKCP6ZlGeU/f77TCi853HjqgT2VRJACfaySX kSru/CK899tb30QWsmM4pfc=8Vs8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1531409.jU7hUoO2Bt--