Hi, * Comments inline.
>Erwin Tenhumberg wrote: > >> I just took a look at your case study survey document. Charles is >> right, the layout looks really nice and professional! Agreed, it looks quite nice. Thanks for enhancing the form and making it look so good. > >:-D >Glad you like it. > >> I have a few questions/suggestions: >> >> 1.) If I was the owner or spokesperson of a company, I would be less >> interested in the license of the survey and the license for the >> content provided by me, but I'd like to know how the content would >> be used. For example, I might want to know where the content might >> show up in the end and in what context. > >Yeah, I see your point. We also need some kind of waver form (or so I >hear). I guess that this information would be part of the waver. Maybe >the waver will replace the current license information. Good point: We should use a waiver. A standard waiver would simply allow us to use what they fill out for our own purposes; they waive rights over it. This resolves license issues for the respondent. > >> BTW, why did you choose the Creative Commons license? > >The first benefit of Creative Commons licenses is that they are [snip] For this and any other editable document housed on OpenOffice.org, the CC is not acceptable. If you wish to contribute editable documents to OOo, then I suggest the PDL or signing and submitting the JCA. The JCA is a joint copyright assignment: you retain copyright, too. Persons filling out the case study form would have signed the waiver; their rights are not an issue. > >> attention to the license in the past. Nevertheless, the "You must >> give the original author credit." seems to be strange to me for a >> living/working document like this!? > >A few things: > >1) OOoAuthors is using a CC license right now, and it's worked well so >far. In fact, it's a significant improvement over what we had before >(PDL). > Actually, the use of the CC and GPL by OOoAuthors is a bit of a problem for us (OOo). That's because OOoAuthors is not an OpenOffice.org project and could, say, choose to donate its works elsewhere, where we would not benefit from them. We would prefer to have only editable documents donated to us, so that we may edit them as needed. Only getting PDFs puts puts us in a more vulnerable position. [snip] >> 3.) Since the Sun logo was included in the XML spec and the default >> splash screen I'm a bit hesitant about making the following comment, >> but I think we should be very careful about where we include company >> logos and URL's in order to avoid a proliferation of logos and >> attributions. > >Well... the obvious response is, if Sun can do it, why not DDGTS? :-) > >Notice that the logo is very discrete. I put it in the footer, and >reduced the font-size to make it discrete. But if we're going to use a >CC license, we do have to put some attribution. I actually spent a >while rewriting the attribution to make it as short and discrete as >possible, while still allowing people to reach the copyright holder >and meet the attribution requirement. The logo is not acceptable, if it is coming from OOo. DDGTS is sponsoring your work, great, and it can be thanked, along with other sponsors of work. That should be done. But we do not place advertisements on donated work. Sun is a special case here but even then not that special: when it placed its logo on the splashscreen (the first time), for instance, the non-Sun community was not happy. [snip] >> If I added three questions, would that mean that the Sun logo got >> added, too? What if Novell and Red Hat contributed another five >> questions? > >A few thoughts: > >1) I think that such a small contribution would fall under fair use. >For example, fixing a typo doesn't make you co-author. > >2) But I see your point. But please keep in mind that the CC doesn't >say "you must include a logo". It says "attribution". So, for example, >the rewrite could say "survey by DDGTS, Sun and Red Hat". That would >do. No, it wouldn't. No logos save those of OOo. Again, we can thank the sponsoring company elsewhere. [snip] > >> 7.) I would be cautious about including the link to DDGTS under >> eLearning, because twenty other companies from this list might want >> to get listed too, which obviously is not feasible. At least it >> should say "e.g. www.digitaldistribution.com". > >Why would 20 other companies be listed? This document was the product >of just one company, and that's the one that gets listed. I agree with Erwin's point. No other for profit company is listed. Yet others do exist. See <http://bizdev.openoffice.org/consultants.html>. But that is not the point. We are not advertising companies in our case study form. > >Cheers, Daniel. > Thanks, Louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
