Opensuse KDE Documentation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Opensuse KDE Documentation

Bugzilla from lueck@hube-lueck.de
Hallo Doku-Wichtl,

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.

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?
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?

* 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.

TIA for your feedback.

--
Burkhard Lück
KDE Documentation Team [hidden email]
KDE Translators [hidden email]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opensuse KDE Documentation

Juergen Weigert-2
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. :-)

> 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.
Is this an issue for the kind of modification you are planning?

> 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.

I plan to move forward with the svn next week.

        cheers,
                JW-

--
 o \  Juergen Weigert  paint it green!    __/ _=======.=======_
<V> | [hidden email]       back to ascii!  __/        _---|____________\/
 \  | 0911 74053-508                __/          (____/            /\
(/) | _____________________________/              _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opensuse KDE Documentation

Bugzilla from lueck@hube-lueck.de
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
[hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opensuse KDE Documentation

Bugzilla from lueck@hube-lueck.de
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 [hidden email] and asked for clarification.
>
I got this answer by Alex Merry on [hidden email]:

> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opensuse KDE Documentation

Bugzilla from lueck@hube-lueck.de
Am Sonntag, 28. März 2010 22:14:53 schrieb Burkhard Lück:

> 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 [hidden email] and asked for clarification.
>
> I got this answer by Alex Merry on [hidden email]:
> > 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?
>
Ping?

--
Burkhard Lück
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]