[Koha-devel] Koha Documentation Structure

[Stephen Hedges]

Nice summary, MJ -- thanks!

As it happens, I've been looking more closely at the Linux Documentation
Project (more aabout that in a different e-mail) and noticed the license
in their template for authors.  Take a look at it at
http://www.tldp.org/authors/template/Sample-HOWTO.xml   What do you think
of that license language?

Stephen

MJ Ray said:
> On 2004-10-04 19:04:03 +0100 Andres Tarallo <tarallo at ort.edu.uy> wrote:
>
>> As far as I understood things that are not software (like, books,
>> drawings or
>> music) are not well covered by the GPL.
>
> Yes, here is the long and short of the problem: a lot of people are
> going around saying phrases like that. You can't argue with it: no-one
> can say "this book is software" with absolute certainty because I can
> have a printed copy rather than a disk. Those things *can be*
> software, but need not be.
>
> One thing that clouds the matter is that some languages (is French
> one?) have dictionaries that claim a word for program (logiciel) is a
> synonym for a word for software (software), which is a bit wrong. Some
> languages get it right. Esperanto might be one: program - programo;
> software - programaro. The extra -ar- indicates a collection centred
> around, as I understand it, but I'm not sure of the limits.
>
> Anyway, hardware is the physical computer system - the components and
> trappings. Software has an opposite meaning to hardware. Software is
> the intangible transient part of the computer: the material stored on
> little magnetised elements of ferrous oxide, temporary electrical
> levels in silicon chips or whatever. Software includes programs stored
> in the computer, but is not only programs. John Tukey first used the
> word in print (American Mathematical Monthly, January 1958) describing
> it as the "interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects."
> [Aside: is firmware really software or hardware?]
>
> In part because of this, myself and others think it's fair to apply
> the same tests of freeness to all our creative work, rather than just
> programs, as long as they are computerised. I still call it free
> software, but some I know call it "free media" to placate those who
> deny books can be software.
>
> The GPL actually has a fun definition right at the start of the
> licence:
>
> "0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
> notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
> under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
> refers to any such program or work, ..."
>
> In the GPL, Program means whatever "program or other work" is under
> the GPL!
>
> Now, there may be aspects which aren't well-covered under the GPL,
> like public performance of music, but I'm not very familiar with
> those, so maybe CC are needed. I don't think the bugs in CC have
> anything to do with those aspects, because they hit manuals too.
>
> Actually, I just heard Lawrence Lessig at UCL say to use the GPL for
> software not CC. For manuals that are software, the GPL looks like it
> will apply perfectly well and debian use it for some of theirs.
>
> --
> MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
>   Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
> LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk

-- 
Stephen Hedges
Skemotah Solutions, USA
www.skemotah.com  --  shedges at skemotah.com