From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Wed Feb 16 11:13:28 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id LAA21262; Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:13:28 +0100 Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:13:28 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:09:55 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org, gnupg-doc.de@gnupg.org Subject: New lists Message-ID: <20000216110955.K30816@frodo.gnupg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.1i X-URL: http://www.openit.de X-PGP-KeyID: 621CC013 X-Request-PGP: finger:wkoch@sigtrap.guug.de Sender: Werner Koch Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Hello, I have setup 2 lists for documentation development (gph): gnupg-doc - General stuff, language is English gnupg-doc.de - Development of German dox, language is German (surprise) You have to be subscribed for posting, subscribing as usual (not Majordomo!) Werner From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Fri Feb 18 13:37:38 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id NAA20207; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:37:38 +0100 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:37:38 +0100 Date: 18 Feb 2000 21:35:56 +0900 Message-ID: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> From: IIDA Yosiaki To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Subject: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org I see GPH is covered by GNU GPL. GNU GPL is specially designed for program, not for document. Why isn't it covered by permission notice like one in other manuals published by FSF? If you get bored writing permission notice, you may want to apply Open Publication License, found in: http://opencontent.org/openpub/ -- iida From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Fri Feb 18 16:55:16 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id QAA30676; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:55:16 +0100 Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:55:16 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:36:36 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? Message-ID: <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> Mail-Followup-To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.1i In-Reply-To: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp>; from iida@ring.gr.jp on Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:35:56PM +0900 X-URL: http://www.openit.de X-PGP-KeyID: 621CC013 X-Request-PGP: finger:wkoch@sigtrap.guug.de Sender: Werner Koch Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote: > I see GPH is covered by GNU GPL. GNU GPL is specially > designed for program, not for document. Right, however because this handbook is close related to some software, using the GPH is not that a bad idea. There are quite a couple of books out, which use the GPL. > Why isn't it covered by permission notice like one in > other manuals published by FSF? RMS is working on a documenation license however he suggested to use the GPL for the handbook. > If you get bored writing permission notice, you may want > to apply Open Publication License, found in: > http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Some of the optional features makes this not a good choice. Regarding your translation, we should ask RMS. Can you please do this and CC me and Mike . Werner From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Mon Feb 21 12:06:32 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id MAA16758; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:06:32 +0100 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:06:32 +0100 Date: 21 Feb 2000 20:04:47 +0900 Message-ID: <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> From: IIDA Yosiaki To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org In-reply-to: <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Werner Koch writes: >Right, however because this handbook is close related to some >software, using the GPH is not that a bad idea. There are quite a >couple of books out, which use the GPL. I don't get it. I do see many books which include copy of GNU GPL. But just including GPL in a book does not imply the whole book is using GNU GPL. For example, GNU Emacs User Manual and GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual both are close related to GNU Emacs and they both include a section which is a copy of GNU GPL. But they are not using GNU GPL to protect themselves. They have their own permission notices, so that I am permitted to translate them into Japanese. As far as I understand, translating into another natural language is out of range covered by GNU GPL. >RMS is working on a documenation license however he suggested to use >the GPL for the handbook. ... I see. >Regarding your translation, we should ask RMS. Can you please do this >and CC me and Mike . OK. I will. -- iida From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Mon Feb 21 12:53:18 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id MAA19376; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:53:18 +0100 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:53:18 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:40:41 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? Message-ID: <20000221124041.I8502@frodo.gnupg.de> Mail-Followup-To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.1i In-Reply-To: <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp>; from iida@ring.gr.jp on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:04:47PM +0900 X-URL: http://www.openit.de X-PGP-KeyID: 621CC013 X-Request-PGP: finger:wkoch@sigtrap.guug.de Sender: Werner Koch Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/5 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote: > I do see many books which include copy of GNU GPL. But No, I don't mean that. IIRC, there are DEbian books, GNOME and GTK books entirely under the GPL. Karl Fogel's CVS book has many chapters which fall under the GPL. > As far as I understand, translating into another natural > language is out of range covered by GNU GPL. As long as you adhere to the GPL, you can do what you want with it. This includes translations of course. Compare this to a GPLed program written in C which you want to translate to Scheme - no problem. Werner From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Mon Feb 21 13:06:53 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id NAA20134; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:06:53 +0100 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:06:53 +0100 Date: 21 Feb 2000 21:05:12 +0900 Message-ID: <20000221120512.14966.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> From: IIDA Yosiaki To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org In-reply-to: <20000221124041.I8502@frodo.gnupg.de> Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Werner Koch writes: >As long as you adhere to the GPL, you can do what you want with it. >This includes translations of course. Compare this to a GPLed program >written in C which you want to translate to Scheme - no problem. If you you mean copyleft, not GNU GPL, then I understand. -- iida From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Mon Feb 21 13:18:13 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id NAA20798; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:18:13 +0100 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:18:13 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:11:47 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? Message-ID: <20000221131147.K8502@frodo.gnupg.de> Mail-Followup-To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221124041.I8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221120512.14966.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.1i In-Reply-To: <20000221120512.14966.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp>; from iida@ring.gr.jp on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:05:12PM +0900 X-URL: http://www.openit.de X-PGP-KeyID: 621CC013 X-Request-PGP: finger:wkoch@sigtrap.guug.de Sender: Werner Koch Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/7 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote: > If you you mean copyleft, not GNU GPL, then I understand. Hmm, where is the difference? The GPL is one possible implementation of a copyleft style license. Which point of the GPL does make you think it is not appropriate for documentation? Werner From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Mon Feb 21 14:04:53 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id OAA23241; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:04:53 +0100 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:04:53 +0100 Date: 21 Feb 2000 22:03:15 +0900 Message-ID: <20000221130315.18208.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> From: IIDA Yosiaki To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org In-reply-to: <20000221131147.K8502@frodo.gnupg.de> Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221124041.I8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221120512.14966.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/8 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Werner Koch writes: >The GPL is one possible implementation of a copyleft style license. But not the only. >Hmm, where is the difference? Permission notices on other FSF maunals are also implementations of copyleft. They are tailored for documentation. >Which point of the GPL does make you think it is not appropriate for >documentation? Before I answer this question, I should say this: It is up to you, and you have right to dicide whether you cover your documentation with GNU GPL or not. What I really want to say is that it would be better applying permission notice than applying GNU GPL to documentation. Documentation has neither object code nor executable. So, the 3rd article of GNU GPL has no sense. GNU GPL reads: # Activities other than copying, distribution and #modification are not covered by this License; they are #outside its scope. while, * Free documentation should also be copied and distributed by paper, without machine-readable source. Permission notices on manuals published by FSF explicitly grant this act. * Free documentation should also be translated into another natural language. Most of the permission notices on manuals published by FSF grant this act. Technically, I agree that there are no difference between program, data and documentation, from the view of collection of bits. But I see some meaning in that GNU GPL uses the word "Program" and that the manual published by FSF is not covered by GNU GPL. And I also see that the permission notices on those manuals are very well sophisticated. -- iida From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Mon Feb 21 15:53:15 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id PAA29040; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:53:15 +0100 Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:53:15 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:28:06 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? Message-ID: <20000221152806.M8502@frodo.gnupg.de> Mail-Followup-To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221124041.I8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221120512.14966.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221131147.K8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221130315.18208.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.1i In-Reply-To: <20000221130315.18208.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp>; from iida@ring.gr.jp on Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:03:15PM +0900 X-URL: http://www.openit.de X-PGP-KeyID: 621CC013 X-Request-PGP: finger:wkoch@sigtrap.guug.de Sender: Werner Koch Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote: > What I really want to say is that it would be better > applying permission notice than applying GNU GPL to > documentation. That is up to the FSF - can't change it. > Documentation has neither object code nor executable. > So, the 3rd article of GNU GPL has no sense. Hmmm, you have to write it using the Docbook language, run Jade or other tools over it, and run a formatter backend. Looks pretty much like the usual way programs are created. > * Free documentation should also be copied and distributed > by paper, without machine-readable source. Permission > notices on manuals published by FSF explicitly grant this I think that the machine-readable source should accompany every printed version - it is much easier to search for things using a machine. Werner From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Tue Feb 22 03:58:22 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id DAA05407; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 03:58:22 +0100 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 03:58:22 +0100 Date: 22 Feb 2000 11:56:35 +0900 Message-ID: <20000222025635.3442.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> From: IIDA Yosiaki To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org In-reply-to: <20000221152806.M8502@frodo.gnupg.de> Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221124041.I8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221120512.14966.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221131147.K8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221130315.18208.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Resent-Message-ID: <11CrsB.A.cUB.Otfs4@pharos> Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Tschues! Werner Koch writes: >>What I really want to say is that it would be better >>applying permission notice than applying GNU GPL to >>documentation. >That is up to the FSF - can't change it. Since you are the author of GPH, you can change copying condition policy, even after you covered GPH by GNU GPL published by FSF. >Hmmm, you have to write it using the Docbook language, run Jade or That is what I mean I know there is no difference between data and documentation. As I might write before, I even wrote my own M4 macros to support SGML output. I was lucky because those macros seems to be a pure program, without documentation. People can and do execute this M4 macro, but almost all people don't need to read it, while people just read documentation, and don't execute it. >other tools over it, and run a formatter backend. Looks pretty much >like the usual way programs are created. Yes, it does look. But what do you want people to do with your handbook? I see you want people read it. You also want people run and execute it, in order to make people read it. Of cource you allow people execute it, but this seems not your main intension. I see that which of GNU GPL or permission notices on manuals you want to apply depends on what you want people to do which of reading or running. If you want people to run it, you use GNU GPL. If you want people just read it, you probably don't want to use GNU GPL, though it is possible and you have right to do so. You also want to consider which help people much, allowing people to redistribute paper copy without machine-readable source, or allowing people to redistribute paper copy always with machine-readable source. For program, a copy without machine-readable source is not so useful. That is why GNU GPL prohibit this. For documentation, a copy may be useful even without machine- readable source. There are mixtures of program and documentation, such as DEK's WEB format, which may need another kind of license, when you want them copylefted. But this is not what I am talking at this moment. >I think that the machine-readable source should accompany every >printed version[...] Hmm, as a matter of fact, I was planning to publish paper copy of my translation from a publisher in Japan, since I wanted people to read the Japanese translation. Do I have to accompany machine-readable source with it? >[...]it is much easier to search for things using a >machine. Absolutely yes. A paper copy of document with machine-readable source helps more than without. Thanks. -- iida From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Tue Feb 22 09:13:13 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id JAA18835; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:13:13 +0100 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:13:13 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:56:08 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? Message-ID: <20000222085608.E24590@frodo.gnupg.de> Mail-Followup-To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221124041.I8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221120512.14966.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221131147.K8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221130315.18208.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221152806.M8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000222025635.3442.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.1i In-Reply-To: <20000222025635.3442.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp>; from iida@ring.gr.jp on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:56:35AM +0900 X-URL: http://www.openit.de X-PGP-KeyID: 621CC013 X-Request-PGP: finger:wkoch@sigtrap.guug.de Sender: Werner Koch Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/11 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote: > Since you are the author of GPH, you can change copying > condition policy, even after you covered GPH by GNU GPL > published by FSF. Mike is the author of the GPH and iirc he assigned the copyright to the FSF. After this he cannot change it anymore. Okay, he can fork and continue to work on the version prior to the assignment where he of course can change the terms as he like (after notifying the FSF and waitoing 30 days). > Hmm, as a matter of fact, I was planning to publish paper > copy of my translation from a publisher in Japan, since I > wanted people to read the Japanese translation. Do I have > to accompany machine-readable source with it? You have to promise to make it available for at least 3(?) years. Today this is simple, simply put a notice in it, where the source can be found (ftp.gnupg.org/pub/gcrypt/gph) Werner From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Tue Feb 22 09:35:15 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id JAA20154; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:35:15 +0100 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:35:15 +0100 Date: 22 Feb 2000 17:33:28 +0900 Message-ID: <20000222083328.22481.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> From: IIDA Yosiaki To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org In-reply-to: <20000222085608.E24590@frodo.gnupg.de> Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? References: <20000218123556.18063.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000218163636.A6980@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221110447.11483.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221124041.I8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221120512.14966.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221131147.K8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000221130315.18208.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> <20000221152806.M8502@frodo.gnupg.de> <20000222025635.3442.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> Resent-Message-ID: <_D8TSD.A.26E.Dpks4@pharos> Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Werner Koch writes: >Mike is the author of the GPH and iirc he assigned the copyright to >the FSF. After this he cannot change it anymore. Okay, he can fork Oh, it explains a lot! Now I understand. Thank you. >You have to promise to make it available for at least 3(?) years. >Today this is simple, simply put a notice in it, where the >source can be found (ftp.gnupg.org/pub/gcrypt/gph) I take that as Yes, I can publish paper copy. -- iida From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Tue Feb 22 23:14:14 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id XAA08728; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:14:14 +0100 Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:14:14 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:11:03 +0100 From: Roland Goretzki To: HRFMARTIN@aol.com Cc: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Subject: Re: Datei EDB27b29.txt als E-Mail-Text, EDB9-29.txt als Anhang Message-ID: <20000222231103.A8842@neptun> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: ; from HRFMARTIN@aol.com on Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 11:46:09AM -0500 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org HRFMARTIN@aol.com schrieb: > Außerdem schicke ich heute, um zu testen, ob meine AOL-Adresse für das > Versenden von Anhängen wieder funktioniert, den ganzen bisher übersetzten > Text als Datei EDB9b29.txt im Anhang mit. Ich bitte um Nachricht, falls > dieser Anhang nicht mit übertragen wurde Auch wenn das nicht der erwähnte Fall ist, hier die Rückmeldung: Der Text war auch im Anhang zu finden. :) > zuzuschicken, da ich erst einmal das bisher Übersetzte durchkorrigieren und > Ihnen dann zuschicken möchte, bevor ich neuen übersetzten Text schicke. > Ich greife jetzt hier mal eigenmächtig ein (mit der Bitte um Widerruf von berufenerer Seite, falls mein Vorschlag schlecht sein sollte): Die Übersetzung von Ihnen, Herr Martin, so gut sie auch immer ist, braucht für uns überhaupt nicht "perfekt" zu sein, da sie uns "nur" eine unverzichtbare Hilfe bei der Erstellung der deutschen Fassung des GPH ist. Die Formulierung, die letztlich in der dt. F. des GPH stehen wird, soll eigentlich das Resultat unserer (der Dokumentatoren) Arbeit sein, zumal darauf aufbauend noch ein weiteres Handbuch mit einem (im Vergleich zu dem bald vorliegenden) für einen Laien wesentlich leichter verständlichen Text geplant ist. Falls es überhaupt möglich sein sollte, bis Ende März die übersetzte Fassung vollständig verfügbar im docbook-Format vorliegen zu haben, geht es jetzt vielmehr darum, daß wir Dokumentatoren so früh wie möglich Zugang zur gesamten (nennen wir es mal;-) "Grob"-Übersetzung bekommen. Gezielte Nachfragen zu bestimmten Passagen oder auch einzelnen Vokabeln könnten dann für Sie, Herr Martin, viel weniger zeitaufwendig und für uns Dokumentatoren effektiver sein. Bitte antworten Sie so schnell wie möglich, denn da ich auf die Mails von gestern, Montag, 01:31 Uhr und heute, Dienstag, 01:46 Uhr an Sie noch keine Antwort bekommen habe, bin ich nicht mehr sicher, ob Sie diese Mails überhaupt erhalten haben! Mit fröhlichen Grüßen Roland Goretzki From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Wed Feb 23 02:39:55 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id CAA14670; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:39:55 +0100 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 02:39:55 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:46:36 -0500 (EST) From: "J. Michael Ashley" Reply-To: jashley@acm.org To: IIDA Yosiaki cc: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? In-Reply-To: <20000222085608.E24590@frodo.gnupg.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/14 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 IIDA, On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Werner Koch wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote: > > > Since you are the author of GPH, you can change copying > > condition policy, even after you covered GPH by GNU GPL > > published by FSF. > > Mike is the author of the GPH and iirc he assigned the copyright to > the FSF. After this he cannot change it anymore. Okay, he can fork > and continue to work on the version prior to the assignment where > he of course can change the terms as he like (after notifying the FSF > and waitoing 30 days). Yes, the copyright has been assigned to the FSF. To clarify, I am the only one who has this right to fork the manual as Werner described. The manual is licensed under the GPL, because it was the best choice at the time. After dissecting several licenses, including the documentation license that the FSF is composing, I was not happy with any of them. Although imperfect, the GPL was the best of the group. > > Hmm, as a matter of fact, I was planning to publish paper > > copy of my translation from a publisher in Japan, since I > > wanted people to read the Japanese translation. Do I have > > to accompany machine-readable source with it? According to my understanding of the GPL, modifications to the manual such as adding new material are covered by the GPL. Translations are also covered by the GPL. So you must distribute your translation under the GPL. As Werner said, you could do this by giving a pointer to an ftp site giving a machine-readable version of the manual. Personally, I would like to see your translation contributed back to the GnuPG project so that we can add it to the Spanish and German translations. You are of course not required to do this, but I would appreciate it. Mike -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjizO/8ACgkQBwMqlokEyOJXRgCeI0OeB2vSnkmp2zZ3VBssPILv YUcAn3XF+vaZhMyM4pFNs0cyuF9FsSQW =Ib7g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Wed Feb 23 03:44:52 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id DAA16218; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:44:52 +0100 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:44:52 +0100 Date: 23 Feb 2000 11:43:12 +0900 Message-ID: <20000223024312.22227.qmail@anjyu.secom-sis.co.jp> From: IIDA Yosiaki To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org In-reply-to: Subject: copyright assignment (was Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why?) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/15 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Hello, Mike. I am a member of gnujdoc project too. As you may know, gnujdoc is a official project of FSF. And I am ready to sign copyright assignment for this Japanese translation of GnuPG Privacy Handbook. Now I also understand that assignment and disclaimer differ. I have signed disclaimer and I know how to make it, but I don't know how to make copyright assignment. Could you point out how I can get template? Thanks. "J. Michael Ashley" writes: >Personally, I would like to see your translation contributed back >to the GnuPG project so that we can add it to the Spanish and German >translations. You are of course not required to do this, but I would >appreciate it. -- iida From gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org Wed Feb 23 09:44:13 2000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by pharos.hsp.de id JAA25426; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:44:13 +0100 Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:44:13 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:45:38 +0100 From: Horacio MG To: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Subject: Re: GNU GPL for doc -- Why? Message-ID: <20000223084538.A611@ciberia.es> Reply-To: homega@ciberia.es (Horacio) References: <20000222085608.E24590@frodo.gnupg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from jashley@ct39416-a.nblvil1.in.home.com on Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:46:36PM -0500 X-Editor: Vim 5.5 X-DSA/EG-KeyID: 0x42337AE6 X-RSA-KeyID: 0x32D4A925 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/16 X-Loop: gnupg-doc@gnupg.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: gnupg-doc-request@gnupg.org El mar, 22 de feb de 2000, a las 08:46:36 -0500, J. Michael Ashley dijo: > > According to my understanding of the GPL, modifications to the manual > such as adding new material are covered by the GPL. Translations > are also covered by the GPL. So you must distribute your translation > under the GPL. As Werner said, you could do this by giving a pointer > to an ftp site giving a machine-readable version of the manual. Talking about translations, there are translations of the GPL at gnu.org for various languages, but these translations are just that, translations, not legal documents. Therefore, a translated document must point to the English language GPL, and may add a pointer to the corresponding translation of the GPL, making clear it is just a translation of the legal doc. ...or so I believe. -- Horacio Anno MMDCCLIII aUC homega@ciberia.es Valencia - ESPAÑA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = F4EE AE5E 2F01 0DB3 62F2 A9F4 AD31 7093 4233 7AE6