From kde-devel  Sat Jan 07 09:43:33 2006
From: Michael Pyne <michael.pyne () kdemail ! net>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:43:33 +0000
To: kde-devel
Subject: Re: Debian, KDE and the GFDL problem
Message-Id: <200601070443.40143.michael.pyne () kdemail ! net>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=113662657713312
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--===============1683398759=="

--===============1683398759==
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart2344922.RRUomcsNQb";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--nextPart2344922.RRUomcsNQb
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday 05 January 2006 03:47, Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> 1) Edit KDE tarballs for every version of every module including a
>    GFDL'ed manual and repackage them without them.
>
>    This would be a great amount of work, and would leave Debian without a
>    single user manual for our users to read up in Yelp. I guess we could
>    get rid of khelpcenter too. :)
>
> 2) Convince manual authors to a) relicense their works under the GPL, or
>    b) double-license them under both the GFDL and GPL.
>
> I personally vouch for 2b) as it gives more choice to people, and doesn't
> change the current licensing situation too radically. Also, for reasons
> explained in the previously mentioned documents, having different
> licences for a program and its documentation is a bad idea, and dual
> licensing takes care of that too.

I'd be willing to relicense my contributions, but it would perhaps be best =
to=20
send this e-mail first to the KDE Documentation team mailing list=20
( kde-doc-english@kde.org ).  Many of the docs in KDE have been authored by=
 a=20
small dedicated team of people (if it wasn't authored by the application=20
author).  Even when the app author makes the documentation, it is typically=
=20
touched up by the doc team.  So that would be a fast way to get many of the=
=20
copyright holders signed off.

But, I'd also like to know what the documentation team thinks.  I assume th=
ere=20
is a reason we are using the GFDL.  The doc team would know if the GFDL is=
=20
*required* (i.e. for the don't-touch sections) or just what everyone though=
t=20
would be best to use.  Pending objections brought up by the doc team I don'=
t=20
mind dual licensing my documentation.  But that would only cover part of Ju=
K=20
(in kdemultimedia) and part of kdesvn-build (in kdesdk).

> (in fact this mail is a
> filtered version of the one sent to the GNOME list [4].

Ah, so that explains what Yelp is.  I wasn't aware that Yelp was GNOME's=20
equivalent to khelpcenter until reading the mail sent to GNOME's=20
desktop-devel ;)

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne

--nextPart2344922.RRUomcsNQb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDv41MqjQYp5Omm0oRAhyiAKCWRQvneGhfL1l4rRSQHRw3DOG06ACeOgxp
XLOlWEPB15srWQZLwGCvruA=
=gr1G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2344922.RRUomcsNQb--

--===============1683398759==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

--===============1683398759==--