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