Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-doc (4 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-doc] Opensuse KDE Documentation
  • From: Burkhard Lück <lueck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:20:16 +0100
  • Message-id: <201003142120.16474.lueck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 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),
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? 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
kde-licensing@xxxxxxx and asked for clarification.

I found source rpm's on, 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, 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.


Burkhard Lück

P.S. No need to cc me, I am suscribed to the list.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-doc+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-doc+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
Follow Ups