[Pkg-kde-talk] license problems ...

[Pierre Habouzit]

--nextPart1531409.jU7hUoO2Bt
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

> > > > don't know what can be done. :-(
> > >
> > > The most valuable part in KDE, the code, is LGPL. Then, why not
> > > suggest make the doc LGPL too?
> >
> > IMHO, because it's not a license designed for documentation.

I don't see why ...
sure, the 'link' part are not very obvious for documentation. so maybe=20
GPL or an BSD style is better.


> I know a faq is not a law, but seems all doc-licenses are not DFSG
> friendly. I thought the CC but looks like this one neither is good
> for debian. =BFMay be dual licensing FDL/LGPL?

I never understood how this is possible to dual-license sth. can I=20
choose the license I prefer when I take the work under both licenses ?=20
or does the author choose for me under which he gives me his work ? or=20
does both apply ? how do you merge ?

moreover, GFDL is not (L)GPL compliant AFAIK, so it's very curious.

but if that's possible, and enough for DFSG ... then maybe it's the=20
solution
=2D-=20
=B7O=B7  Pierre Habouzit
=B7=B7O
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

--nextPart1531409.jU7hUoO2Bt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBCLNYavGr7W6HudhwRAqnFAKCP6ZlGeU/f77TCi853HjqgT2VRJACfaySX
kSru/CK899tb30QWsmM4pfc=
=8Vs8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1531409.jU7hUoO2Bt--