Am Sonntag, 14. März 2010 21:20:16 schrieb Burkhard Lück: > 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 got this answer by Alex Merry on [email protected]: > Erm... how on earth did that get into their copyright statement? The FDL > actively prohibits anything other than a "Secondary Section" being > designated Invariant, and a Secondary Section "is a named appendix or a > front-matter section of the document that deals exclusively with the > relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the > Document's overall subject..." > > Now, I guess that you could read "front-matter" to include copyright > notices, but that is clearly not what is intended. Especially as in > section 4 it says: "...provided that you release the Modified Version > under precisely this License..." and "you must... Preserve all the > copyright notices of the Document". > [snip]
> Well, I'm not even sure Novell's licensing header is valid, since they have > designated as an Invariant Section something that (by my reading) is > prohibited by the FDL from being an Invariant Section. > His argument wrt "Secondary Section" seems to be valid to me, what do you think? -- Burkhard Lück -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
