On Thursday 30 January 2003 12:21 pm, Dirk Mueller wrote:
>Hi,
>
>it seems to me that while we have a generally accepted license policy for
>our source and documentation, we don't have something similiar for the
>contents of our webpages.

Just so things are perfectly clear for everyone, I think it might be an idea 
to define what the scope of 'webpages' and 'documentation' is in this context 
to avoid confusion.

I currently define webpages as 'the contents of kde-www and *.kde.org cvs 
modules', and documentation as 'the kdoc generated docs'.

>I think we need one, to ensure that the contributions we receive are
>permanent and not subject to the contributors will ("ah no, you can't use it
>anymore, remove it").

I agree.

>There is a short list of possible licenses for these kind of documents here:
>
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
>
>As we use the GPL and the FDL already, these two are possible candidates for
>a KDE web page license policy. There is also the possibility to use the
>FreeBSD documentation license or the BSD/X11 license.

I would suggest that we do not use FDL as the debian project seems to be 
constantly bickering about its 'freeness' as it allows the use of 'Invariant 
Sections' and 'Cover Texts'. The FreeBSD documentation license is the best 
option imho.

>Do you think we can agree on one license? it would avoid having to
>explicitely state the license in each and every document that is added to
>the webpage CVS. Instead, one could blindly assume that whoever is working
>on a document in the kde-www CVS module, is using license XXX.
>Otherwise, an explicit comment with copyright and comment has to be added
>to the documents.

Yes, an implied license would be a good idea. If anyone wants to use another 
license for some valid reason in future, they can put the license header in 
the documents.

-- Karol
_______________________________________________
Kde-policies mailing list
Kde-policies@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-policies