Tom Callaway wrote:
> LGPL is a VERY poor license for these documentation files. I'd be
> happier if the kdelibs license had a case where the apidocs generated
> from the kdelibs files were explicitly stated to be under a proper docs
> license.
>
> In fact, in my initial attempt to apply the LGPLv2 terms to the apidocs
> case, I ran into 2a) "The modified work must itself be a software
> library.", which the apidocs are not.
>
> So, I'm not even convinced anyone aside from the copyright holders
> actually has permission to redistribute the apidocs (as a "modified
> work" of the LGPLv2 kdelibs). Just trying to figure out a way for this
> to work under the LGPLv2 is giving me a migraine.
But the LGPL allows converting to the GPL which does not have this
limitation, and in fact the FSF lists the GPL as a license which can be
applied to documentation, though it doesn't encourage that practice.
(In fact, I think that sentence is intended to make non-library uses of LGPL
code always use GPL terms.)
I don't see how building this documentation as binaries from the LGPLed or
GPLed source code is in any way a violation of the licenses. If the code
files as a whole can be distributed (L)GPL, extracting the documentation
portions from it is explicitly allowed by the GPL (and the LGPL allows
converting to the GPL).
> The simplest way to fix this would be to amend the kdelibs license to
> say something like:
>
> As an exception to the LGPL, documentation generated from this
> library for the purposes of documenting the API of this library is
> licensed under the terms of the *INSERT_YOUR_DOC_LICENSE_HERE*.
I don't think upstream can realistically change the license. There are
dozens of contributors who all hold copyright.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
