[Kdeev-books] First cut - scripting chapter, dcop chapter and structure

[Jan Schumacher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 31 August 2003 17:35, Ralf Nolden wrote:
> On Sonntag, 31. August 2003 17:06, Jan Schumacher wrote:
> > Copyright reassignment makes one
> > imortant difference: the new owner of the work can re- or duallicense it
> > like Trolltech does with QT. But why would KDE e.V. want to do that?
>
> In case we want to re-lincense the books under the GPL for instance ?

OK, that makes sense. However, in that case wouldn't it be enough to just give 
KDE e.V. the right to relicense the book as you mention below?

> I think we first have to really read over the pages on the license itself:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.html
>
> especially the optional features.

I have taken a (non-professional) look at some licenses. The options of the 
FDL include cover texts and invariant sections. The latter ones are meant to 
include opinion pieces on the main sections of the work. To my understanding 
the FSF included these to be able to attach their manifesto irrevocably. 
Apart from that it is a copyleft license, with rather strict conditions on 
modified works. For example (paraphrased):
   4A use a different title
   4I preserve (and maintain as stated elsewhere) a history section
   4K preserve acknowledgements and dedication sections
   4L preserve all cover texts and invariant sections
This of course applies not only to simple modifications, but also to parts 
that could be used elsewhere, in a different manual say. The FDL is GPL 
incompatible which means any example code that is significant enough to have 
its own copyright needs to be dual licensed if it is supposed to be used in a 
GPL program. Furthermore GPL'd code cannot be included in a FDL'd document 
without relicensing. Note that anyone who receives a copy under this license 
can add invariant sections and republish the material

The Open Content License has less restrictions as long as no options are used. 
Its options, however, allow it to restrict modification and/or publication as 
a book. Doing so will of course render it non-free.

The Apple Common Documentation License seems very permissible, similar to the 
GPL. It contains a clause, however, that allows it to be updated by Apple. 
Users can choose between the original version or a later version.

> Note that I still didn't have the time nor the patience to go through all
> of this, so before we start working on text we should go for a) if we use
> the FDL b) which optional condidtions we use and c) wether the KDE e.V.
> needs to have exclusive rights or not. My personal opinion is that I would
> like to have the KDE e.V. hold a position that only the KDE e.V. can
> fullfill in terms of, as mentioned, relicensing, if we discover that the
> GPL is much better suitable. Reaching documentation writers after years is
> a PITA similar to authors of software, but if we use the optional features
> of the FDL then even a removal of the optional features, if encountered the
> better solution, won't be possible. This is why I would like to have the
> general license be the FDL plus granting the e.V. the exclusive right to
> decide about optional features and to relicense it under the GPL or another
> free documentation license listed under the documentation licenses section
> on gnu.org. As said, I still don't really know what is the best thing here,
> I'm just making proposals.

To find an answer to a) and b) above, the first thing to ask is, what do you 
wish the license to accomplish. In more detail: Should it be a free license 
in the DFSG/FSF sense? In that case, publishers will not be under the 
obligation to hand out free books to developers. I do think having a free 
book is desirable. Do you wish to include invariant sections covering 
particular opinions or ideas regarding the subject matter of KDE development 
or your relationship to it? In that case you may want to use the GFDL. Do you 
wish to include material from the Qt Reference? Then the GPL might be the way 
to go.

The answer to c) depends on the answers to a) and b). If the book is released 
under the GPL in the first place, I see little reason to relicense it later. 
Then again, maybe it might be worth to only release it under GPLv2 and give 
KDE e.V. the right to release it under later versions. The reason that the 
FSF wants to have the copyrights reassigned from the authors is that they 
believe it is easier to take action against license infringers if copyright 
is owned by one party. This argument could be made for the whole of KDE and 
Linux as well, though.

Regards,
Jan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/UjnY4cR0MEP0sUQRAntwAJ9KHLzyZxA7KhrcIyXmsKLe1HPrrwCgu0pE
zoQrWhb4txhFOSkW0DtgcrY=
=u/fR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----