Am Freitag, 12. März 2010 16:44:34 schrieb Juergen Weigert: > Hi Burkhard! > > On Mar 10, 10 15:44:40 +0100, Burkhard Lück wrote: > > Hallo Doku-Wichtl, > > Wow, a surprisingly correct and welcomed salutation. :-) > > > I am working since some years in the german translation team and in the > > kde documentation team. > > > > A few days ago I accidently found this page > > http://www.novell.com/documentation/opensuse112/ with a KDE User Guide > > and a KDE Quickstart Manual for KDE 4. > > Good you found us! Though 'accidently' makes me worry a bit. :-) > Accidently because I am no Suse user (even if a suse from around 6.0 opened my eyes for the wonderfull world of free software and convinced me to switch to Linux, thanks a lot SuSE!); debian/kubuntu here; and because I never expected a distri to write something like a KDE User Guide - that should be the responsibility of the kde documentation team. > > I am writing here for several reasons: > > > > * using modified parts of these documentation in KDE. > > The documentation is Copyright 200-2009 Novell Inc. and FDL licensed? > > Yes, please do so. We publish under GFDLv2.1 - with a section containing > the text of GFDL2.1, marked as invariant section.
2.1 must be a typo, you mean 1.2? With your use of the invariant section I am really confused (but IANAL), because: As far as I understand the FDL your invariant section seems to be superfluous: If i want to use a FDL licensed text with no invariant section I have to add a copyright for the source text anyway and license the modified text under FDL, so why is your invariant section needed? > Is this an issue for the kind of modification you are planning? > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy says about Documentation: FDL versions 1.2 or later versions with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Text. "with no Invariant Sections" might be the problem here, that's why I mailed to [email protected] and asked for clarification. > > I found source rpm's on download.opensuse.org, is there any other way to > > get read-only access to the latest version of these docs in a repository? > > We maintain our docbook sources in a subversion repo. > The good news is, we move this repo to a public location. > We are currently evaluating two options, > svn.opensuse.org and berlios. > > > * collaboration on updating/extending this documentation. It's strange > > that two groups work on documentation for KDE whithout even > > knowing each other and waste their limited time with duplicated work. > > Good point. As soon as we have settled in one of the public repos, we > should be able to collaborate more easily. > E.g. through patches, or a writable subtree. > A public repo, even if it is read-only, would be great. I have a lot of ideas to ease a workflow for collaboration, but let's sort out this license issue first. Thanks. -- Burkhard Lück P.S. No need to cc me, I am suscribed to the list. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
