Hey Everyone! I just wanted to weigh in on the whole KohaCon convo. My personal feelings on the matter are this: I would love to see next year's KohaCon in NZ and I would hate to see anything detract from glory of the event. What location could be more fitting for a KohaCon than the womb from which Koha was sprung? Surely this should be the main event! If there is a need for a user's conference in the US, why not set something up at ALA? Also, the mini forums we are seeing more of, hosted by newly adopted Koha libraries, are very effective for getting lots of local Koha users together. For example Goodwin College here in CT is hosting a local get together in November for all of the CT libraries who have questions or want to share experiences. This may not be as easy in larger states where it takes more than two hours to drive through them, but these are just some thoughts. Thanks -Nate Nathan A. Curulla Senior VP, Director of Marketing and Business Development ByWater Solutions Support and Consulting for Open Source Software. Headquarters: Santa Barbara, CA. Office: West Haven, CT. Phone # (203) 685-7207 http://bywatersolutions.com sales@bywatersolutions.com -----Original Message----- From: koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz [mailto:koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz] On Behalf Of koha-request@lists.katipo.co.nz Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:12 AM To: koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Subject: Koha Digest, Vol 48, Issue 17 Send Koha mailing list submissions to koha@lists.katipo.co.nz To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to koha-request@lists.katipo.co.nz You can reach the person managing the list at koha-owner@lists.katipo.co.nz When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Koha digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Some records not searchable (Agnes Rivers-Moore) 2. Re: RFC: relicense wiki.koha.org (Thomas Dukleth) 3. Re: MARC Data Import Followup (Zachary Tucker) 4. Display new titles (Anna K?gedal) 5. Fwd: KohaCon '10 virtual component (Nicolas Morin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:37:46 -0400 From: Agnes Rivers-Moore <arm@hanover.ca> Subject: Re: [Koha] Some records not searchable To: Chris Morrison <cmm1005@gmail.com> Cc: koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Message-ID: <4ACD264A.5000406@hanover.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed We have noticed that in both bulk imports and day to day cataloguing, Zebra will occasionally ignore a record for no reason we can see. Our solution has been to schedule a full zebra reindex overnight, from cron. So far, this seems to have mopped up all the ones the original indexing skipped. Agnes Chris Morrison wrote:
I did a bit of searching and didn't see this directly addressed, so I figured I'd post it here. We have just completed migrating our catalog to Koha and while a majority of our records work perfectly well, a few are not coming up in search queries.
What is odd about this is that all of them imported successfully and appear to be indexed by Zebra. We can access them and edit the MARC records. I can even access them directly via URL. For example, we have a book titled "We Stand Together," available here:
http://koha.lru.edu/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=33179
This was imported along with a few thousand other records, most of which work, but many of which don't. Yet though it is accessible directly (and, interestingly, it does appear in the shelf-browser), it does not come up in the OPAC search either by title, keyword, author, or subject search, etc.
I've compared the MARCs of ones that work with ones that don't and see no appreciable difference.
Any thoughts on the nature of the problem? Thanks!
Chris Morrison Bertha Smith Library Luther Rice Seminary and University Lithonia, GA 30038 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com
-- Agnes Rivers-Moore Assistant Librarian Hanover Public Library ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:54:24 -0000 (UTC) From: "Thomas Dukleth" <kohalist@agogme.com> Subject: Re: [Koha] RFC: relicense wiki.koha.org To: "Galen Charlton" <galen.charlton@liblime.com> Cc: Ben Finney <ben+koha@benfinney.id.au>, koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Message-ID: <d19cc50de9b3a6e22dce5bb739aa5a11.squirrel@wmail.agogme.com> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 [I had intended to write about this issue earlier but I had thought that addressing the issue had been postponed until after settling some other issues. The originally proposed date for a vote passed as community attention became devoted to other issues.] I think that the basic wiki content relicensing proposal is good but there are some mistaken presumptions and the ambiguity of the ballot question needs fixing, http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=relicensing . I have a very brief examination of the history of the difficulty and a proposed remedy for the ambiguity of the ballot question. I also introduce other possibilities than relying upon the supposition of a favourable reading of the GPL to cover wiki content. I reject those other possibilities which I introduce and offer licensing under GPL 2 with the or later clause as the least worst option at the present time. 1. DIFFERENCE BETWEEK THE KOHA WIKI AND WIKIPEDIA. Wikipedia used a similar process but also had the benefit of invoking the GFDL with an or a later version clause. FSF made a specific modification to GFDL 1.3 allowing Wikipedia to switch to the CC-BY SA license. There is no similar provision in any CC-BY NC SA license allowing relicensing under the GPL. However, Wikiipedia had a specific problem about relicensing because the number of contributors are too many to have a vote which would have approached significant agreement even with the unanimous ascent of the most devoted contributors. The Koha community does not have the same problem with the Koha wiki because Koha is a relatively small community where it is much easier to obtain ascent and agreement. Obviously the Koha community was too small for people to pay enough attention to the default DokuWiki content license to recognise it as a problem at an earlier point. This is a case where it is fortunate that if the wiki is a work of joint authorship and not merely a collection of separate works then at least US legal practise would allow significant contributors to relicense the work as a whole without needing the agreement of all contributors. [I have written about the joint versus collective works issue in the absence of copyright assignment when it might go against free software interests in a thread on the koha-devel list from 2007 http://www.nabble.com/copyright-holder-ts10219512.html .] 2. AMBIGUITY OF LICENSING QUESTION. There is no precise question on the wiki relicensing ballot. Do we mean GPL 2 invoked with the or later clause as with the Koha code itself? "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." I suppose that we could rearrange the words to something like following in which program and software have been substituted in a way which reads well in English. "You can redistribute Koha Wiki content and/or modify the content under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." The ambiguity issue needs addressing. Once addressed, I think that this would be the best we can reasonably do for now. This really leaves us with supposing that the GPL software license would be read correctly for covering non-software works when it would not necessarily be read in such a manner. I suspect that this supposition of favourable license reading will work in the Koha community and that there will be no real problems about it. What legal advise has been given to the Debian community about how to at least try to invoke the license well for documentation under the GPL? Documentation licensing has certainly been an inflammatory issue in the Debian community. 3. INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION LICENSES. The GPL itself is a software license with terms covering software. The language of the GPL is not compatible with other types works which are not software perhaps because the language is more carefully constructed for its copyleft purpose covering software than licenses written specifically for other types of works. There really is no clearly good available remedy because FSF have not thought the problem of creating a GPL compatible documentation license to be vexing enough in the universe of problems relating to free software to devote enough of their limited resources to addressing it. A solution for documentation licensing for people using the GPL needs an FSF solution which is one reason why invoking the license with the or later clause is a good idea. The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) was introduced for documentation but had neglected the issue of compatibility with the software license because of a need to preserve the integrity of opinions on free software in essays bound into software manuals published by FSF. Unfortunately, FSF did not consult the software development community well enough when writing the GFDL and relied to heavily on input from other publishers. FSF really recognises what a mistake that was and has fixed there processes. The process of drafting an alternative GNU Simple Free Documentation License (GSFDL) is not obtaining enough attention at FSF and may be focused on fixing the invariant sections and cover texts issue without addressing compatibility with the GPL. Anyone can make comments on the drafts for the next versions of GFDL and the proposed GSFDL and help create better versions of the licenses, http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html . When the GSFDL is issued, there will likely be an upgrade path for works under GFDL which lack invariant sections and cover texts. [The free software community and FSF members can certainly influence FSF but members do not control FSF or the terms of future license versions by popular vote to prevent the open membership of FSF from being subverted by opposing interests such as Microsoft had used in subverting the ISO standards process over OOXML.] 4. DISJUNCTIVE DUAL LICENSING. I consider and reject the idea of two following possibilities for disjunctive dual licensing as a remedy for the problem of licensing the wiki content. Bradley Kuhn likes the use of 'disjunctive' for authors choosing multiple licenses and users having their choice of any or all of the multiple licenses used by authors. Perl uses disjuntive dual licensing under both the Artistic License and the GPL. [Bradley distinguishes disjunctive from what he supposes that most people refer to simply as a dual licensing in a 'core source' business model disfavouring free software. In the 'core source' business model, a company controlling all the copyright to a significant base of code may produce a community version under a free software license and a version with additional features under a proprietary license.] Disjunctive dual licensing wiki content under both GPL 2 or later and CC-BY SA unported 3.0 or later might address the problem. 4.1. GLOBAL DISJUNCTIVE DUAL LICENSING. I will refer to user choice of license for outside of the wiki where the content inside the wiki is automatically under multiple licenses applying to every wiki page as global disjunctive dual licensing. Some people such as Bradley Kuhn encourage software projects to take such an approach for documentation but he also knows that it is not really an adequate remedy. The idea in such a case would be that you would allow the user to use the content outside the wiki in a choice any or all specified licenses. There would then be both the software license for any code and a non-software license for any other content. Such a remedy may be fine for code originating in the wiki. However we should not assume that the authorship of wiki content will originate with people contributing directly to the wiki. Code including help file texts embodied as code could not be copied from the Koha code into the wiki if the wiki allowed the CC-BY SA license which is not as strong or as precise a copyleft license as the GPL and therefore incompatible with the GPL. Pierrick Le Gall had a proposal from 2006 to have special pages in the wiki used to contribute contextual help and better translations which would have help text copied between the wiki and Koha in ways where no one had noticed the license incompatibility problem. The GPL licenses are fairly inclusive in allowing the incorporation of works under other more permissive licenses. However, even any possibility of including CC-BY SA works as part of a work as a whole under the GPL would be a one way possibility if the CC-BY SA parts would be modified under the terms of the GPL for the work as a whole. 4.1. MARKED DISJUNCTIVE DUAL LICENSING. Providing GPL 2 or later and CC-BY SA or later as a default unless marked otherwise as only GPL X or later is a possibility with much appeal for me. However, it may be too easy for people to forget to mark appropriately even in the minority of cases where needed without strong support in the wiki code itself for assisting with the process. I think that such marking would overly complicate contribution to the wiki. If we ever need such a feature as with any possible license upgrade in even some alternative builds of Koha under GPL 3 or AGPL 3, we could create a parallel wiki with a different default license invoked. 5. CONCLUSION. Perhaps question on relicensing the wiki should read as follows. Should we relicense the wiki content as follows? "You can redistribute Koha Wiki content and/or modify the content under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." We ought to seek legal advise about such matters. The FSF would advise against it as advocates for appropriate use of the license that is their position. The Software Freedom Law Center might have a similar answer but at least the Software Freedom Law Center may be inclined to give a more nuanced answer to the extent that it would not be a conflict of interest given that they are council to FSF. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783 On Thu, May 7, 2009 12:25, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Ben Finney <ben+koha@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
But it also doesn't solve the incompatibility between the Koha manual, licensed under GPL, and the Wiki content.
Why not license the wiki content also under GPL? Then the same license terms apply to all the software: programs, documentation, and wiki.
Good idea - the GPL seems to have worked OK for the manual. MJ and I discussed this a bit more on #koha yesterday, and MJ also suggested either the GPL or a free-for-all. For the sake of completeness, the other licenses that came up in the discussion include:
CC-BY - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC0 - http://creativecommons.org/license/zero/
I now think that the GPL is the way to go. I've updated the relicensing page on the wiki (http://wiki.koha.org/doku.php?id=relicensing); are there any other comments about the license or the voting process?
Regards,
Galen -- Galen Charlton VP, Research & Development, LibLime galen.charlton@liblime.com p: 1-888-564-2457 x709 skype: gmcharlt _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:26:56 -0400 From: Zachary Tucker <zbtucker@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Koha] MARC Data Import Followup To: koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Message-ID: <ef9a0eaf0910071826r131c637do6aeb58856887e37@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To those who might be wondering how I ended up fixing the problem - all I needed to do was take compile the mrk file into a mrc file and add an exta space between the field at the separator. Now, I am attempting to add one (1) item per biblio record. I am looking to do this by simply writing a PHP script to do it en masse following a simple template. However, I have a small question about the barcode. Is there some way I can have Koha generate a unique barcode for each biblio record (based on title, ISBN, etc.)? Thanks, Zach