[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: GPL Licence - What to do if a documentation contains some mistakes
From:       "Manuel Gaul" <flying_horse () gmx ! net>
Date:       1999-06-29 21:46:47
[Download RAW message or body]

Thomas Diehl wrote:
>Eric Bischoff wrote:
>>Why not include just ONE version of the GPL licence with each
>>package(and also its translation, provided that there is a legal
>>disclaimer, as you said) ? But if we choose to do so, we would need
>>to have the installation makefiles updated to accomodate that. I
>>would need the help of someone who better knows the installation
>>process to do that - Stephan, what do you think ?
>>
>>Any comment about this proposal is welcome.
>
>Guess there will always be a problem with binary or split-up packages
>(like the 180 or so SuSE RPMs on their ftp server) -- as soon as the
>GPL is just linked or referred to but not included with the program /
>rest of the documentation it's not legally binding, ie useless.

Well, I myself consider this idea as the best solution. Where's the problem?
We could force one GPL (maybe in each language, too) to be installed with
the libs or with base. So every user would have the file. It had to be in a
certain place in the KDEdir (e.g. KDE/share/doc) and so we as the
doc-translators just would have to refer to that place. This should work on
all systems, shouldn't it?
I mean, we don't need that in the unstable versions,but I think that's a
good solution for the "public" releases and that's what the GPL is intended
to.

Or am I simplifying some facts?

Regards,
Manuel

--
<love>PORKANA, minä rakastan sinua</love>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]