On 01/26/2012 03:30 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Maybe this is a silly question, but is this package really valuable?
Does anyone really want 235MB of apidocs, especially given the legal
complexity/concerns, and the availability of these docs on the kde.org
Perhaps killing this subpackage off entirely is a clever way of avoiding
Additionally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of permitting
packaging this specific type of pregenerated content, especially when it
would not necessarily match the kdelibs it refers to.
That said, here is my initial thoughts on this situation:
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
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.
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*.
That still leaves you with the particular compliance requirements of
whatever doc license you choose, but depending on the license chosen, it
is entirely possible that the apidocs would not have a requirement to be
accompanied with matching kdelibs source (my reading of GFDL for example
is such that the apidocs, assuming they are in a suitably Transparent
copy (as defined by the GFDL) can be distributed independently of the
kdelibs source they refer to).