Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
Nathan Whitehead wrote: On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Brian Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So what makes you think the documentation is licensed under LGPL? The documentation is included in the pygame release in the directory "docs/". All the information about licensing I have found for pygame is that it is LGPL. The LGPL file itself is in the directory "docs/". I imagine that everyone that checks in changes for pygame understands that their contribution is going to be LGPL, and this includes the documentation files. A few years ago we made a push to get the documentation in good shape. Many people have helped since then, and I really am not sure what the license on the documentation means. The core of the LGPL I like for the documentation is that anyone can use the docs "as-is" for any purpose. If someone releases any changes to the docs they must be available for anybody under the same terms. Therefore, if you update the documentation as it is added to your book, the changes must be available to anyone, not just people who have purchased your product. That still probably doesn't make much legal sense when combining the LGPL with documentation. But I believe something like this would be the intent of everyone who has contributed to the pygame documentation.
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
In a message of Thu, 22 May 2008 14:32:16 +1200, Greg Ewing writes: >Nathan Whitehead wrote: >> I wasn't thinking of having references to the >> main text in the appendix, more just a quick reference to thumb >> through while you're programming. > >If it's self-contained, I think you'd have a case for it >being "aggregation" rather than "linking". > >Maybe it could be a separate booklet that comes in a >pouch in the back of the book? Then it's clearly >upgradeable, and more easily thumbed through while >programming as well. > >-- >Greg In the past people have got around the 'upgradable' by making it possible to download a new version of the index via a published link. While I love the idea of a separate booklet, it greatly adds to the complexity and cost of the publising process. Laura
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Brian Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So what makes you think the documentation is licensed under LGPL? The documentation is included in the pygame release in the directory "docs/". All the information about licensing I have found for pygame is that it is LGPL. The LGPL file itself is in the directory "docs/". I imagine that everyone that checks in changes for pygame understands that their contribution is going to be LGPL, and this includes the documentation files. -- Nathan
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
In a message of Thu, 22 May 2008 12:45:51 +1200, Greg Ewing writes: >Casey Duncan wrote: >> I'm not a license expert (intentionally), but I'm not not sure the LGP >L >> makes much sense as a documentation license since you can't really lin >k >> to documentation > >Including it as an integral part of another book would >seem to be the documentation equivalent of "linking", >as far as I can see. > >Not sure how you'd satisfy the requirement to allow >users to upgrade to a new version, though, if it's >something like an index that points to other things >in the book. > >-- >Greg There's a Gnu Free Documentation License http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html and the Creative Commons Licenses http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses we might be happier of our documentation was under one of those. When the Gnu Free Doc license came out, a whole lot of people switched to it from have GPL'd their documentation -- so apparantly this is doable. I am not sure on the details of how, though. Anybody know? Laura
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It appears the documentation is LGPL. LGPL doesn't make a lot of sense for documentation, it refers to binaries and linking and source code which don't really apply (the Gnu FDL or Free Documentation License is what is intended to apply) So what makes you think the documentation is licensed under LGPL? Is there actually any place on the website that explicitly says terms that the documentation may be licensed under? If not, is there any place that declares whether contributors to the documentation are disclaiming copyright or licensing it to pygame or anything?
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
Nathan Whitehead wrote: I wasn't thinking of having references to the main text in the appendix, more just a quick reference to thumb through while you're programming. If it's self-contained, I think you'd have a case for it being "aggregation" rather than "linking". Maybe it could be a separate booklet that comes in a pouch in the back of the book? Then it's clearly upgradeable, and more easily thumbed through while programming as well. -- Greg
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure how you'd satisfy the requirement to allow > users to upgrade to a new version, though, if it's > something like an index that points to other things > in the book. That's a good point. I wasn't thinking of having references to the main text in the appendix, more just a quick reference to thumb through while you're programming. I guess to update the appendix users could download a new version, print it out, then stuff it in the book ;) More seriously, it would be handy to have a printable version of the pygame documentation, that is useful independent of any book about pygame. Thanks everyone for your replies. My conclusion so far is that the plan for the appendix isn't crazy and I'll go ahead with it until I hear a good argument for why it's not allowed or that it is unreasonable. I'll pass the question along to my lawyer friend and see if he has any new angles on it. -- Nathan Whitehead deadpixelpress.com
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
Casey Duncan wrote: I'm not a license expert (intentionally), but I'm not not sure the LGPL makes much sense as a documentation license since you can't really link to documentation Including it as an integral part of another book would seem to be the documentation equivalent of "linking", as far as I can see. Not sure how you'd satisfy the requirement to allow users to upgrade to a new version, though, if it's something like an index that points to other things in the book. -- Greg
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It appears the documentation is LGPL. The source code of the appendix would appear on the book's website (LaTeX source). The entire book would not be LGPL. Seems to me that this would be in accordance with the spirit of the LGPL, so far as it can be applied to something that's not a piece of software. -- Greg
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the LGPL allows open-source code to be used in closed-source applications. To Quote the article, "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library": "using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; " For the really curious see this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html For info on the GPL, see this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html brad
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
I'm not a license expert (intentionally), but I'm not not sure the LGPL makes much sense as a documentation license since you can't really link to documentation (not in the binary linking sense anyway, web links notwithstanding). So the distinction between LGPL and GPL for documentation is not obvious to me. As for how appropriate it is, I think that really depends on the temperament of the authors and contributors to the original docs and how they feel about it. If they're ok with it, then that's really what matters IMO. I'm sure if you were willing to contribute an improved version back to the community, that would go a long way toward making folks feel good about it. -Casey On May 21, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Nathan Whitehead wrote: I would like to include a quick reference to pygame functions in an appendix of my book. Would it be permissible to use the documentation of pygame for this (reformatted and possibly reorganized)? It appears the documentation is LGPL. The source code of the appendix would appear on the book's website (LaTeX source). The entire book would not be LGPL. Some chapters will appear for free on the website, others will not. I think this would be OK, but I'm not a license expert. Any thoughts? Apart from legalities, would that be appropriate? -- Nathan Whitehead deadpixelpress.com
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
Yes, sorry I thought that LGPL was a derivate from GPL 2008/5/22 James Paige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > LGPL is different than GPL. > > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:38:15AM +0200, OsKaR wrote: > >I'm not an licesnse expert, like you, but I think (or maybe I read it > >somewhere) that if you use something with GPL license all the > derivated > >works would be GPL too, however the best idea is to ask a really > expert. > > > >2008/5/21 Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I would like to include a quick reference to pygame functions in an > > appendix of my book. Would it be permissible to use the > documentation > > of pygame for this (reformatted and possibly reorganized)? > > > > It appears the documentation is LGPL. The source code of the > appendix > > would appear on the book's website (LaTeX source). The entire book > > would not be LGPL. Some chapters will appear for free on the > website, > > others will not. I think this would be OK, but I'm not a license > > expert. Any thoughts? Apart from legalities, would that be > > appropriate? > > -- > > Nathan Whitehead > > deadpixelpress.com >
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
LGPL is different than GPL. On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:38:15AM +0200, OsKaR wrote: >I'm not an licesnse expert, like you, but I think (or maybe I read it >somewhere) that if you use something with GPL license all the derivated >works would be GPL too, however the best idea is to ask a really expert. > >2008/5/21 Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I would like to include a quick reference to pygame functions in an > appendix of my book. Would it be permissible to use the documentation > of pygame for this (reformatted and possibly reorganized)? > > It appears the documentation is LGPL. The source code of the appendix > would appear on the book's website (LaTeX source). The entire book > would not be LGPL. Some chapters will appear for free on the website, > others will not. I think this would be OK, but I'm not a license > expert. Any thoughts? Apart from legalities, would that be > appropriate? > -- > Nathan Whitehead > deadpixelpress.com
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
I'm not an licesnse expert, like you, but I think (or maybe I read it somewhere) that if you use something with GPL license all the derivated works would be GPL too, however the best idea is to ask a really expert. 2008/5/21 Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I would like to include a quick reference to pygame functions in an > appendix of my book. Would it be permissible to use the documentation > of pygame for this (reformatted and possibly reorganized)? > > It appears the documentation is LGPL. The source code of the appendix > would appear on the book's website (LaTeX source). The entire book > would not be LGPL. Some chapters will appear for free on the website, > others will not. I think this would be OK, but I'm not a license > expert. Any thoughts? Apart from legalities, would that be > appropriate? > -- > Nathan Whitehead > deadpixelpress.com >
Re: [pygame] pygame documentation license
You'd probably need to ask a Lawyer - or ask your publisher to ask a Lawyer. On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Nathan Whitehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to include a quick reference to pygame functions in an > appendix of my book. Would it be permissible to use the documentation > of pygame for this (reformatted and possibly reorganized)? > > It appears the documentation is LGPL. The source code of the appendix > would appear on the book's website (LaTeX source). The entire book > would not be LGPL. Some chapters will appear for free on the website, > others will not. I think this would be OK, but I'm not a license > expert. Any thoughts? Apart from legalities, would that be > appropriate? > -- > Nathan Whitehead > deadpixelpress.com >
