Hi,
>Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: <snip> >> IZ is a relatively special case; things included there, as with >> email, files & documents, fall under the provisions of the Terms of >> Use. > >Ahhh, no worries. We'll just attach stuff to the IZ issue's as >appropriate, and let the OOo project refer to that if/when it gets >around to it. :) Okay. > > >> In general, however, we require people to use the PDL or JCA when >> contributing documents to OOo that will subsequently be edited. > >Ok. If it's any help, the CC licenses are widely accepted and >appreciated amongst much of the OSS Community, as they're generally >seen as good, solid licenses with good intentions behind them. I well understand the appeal of CC licensed documents, but OOo uses other licensing schema for editable documents, and we'll only accept documents (templates, here) that are editable. As to responses... if the respondents sign the waiver that'll suffice. > [snip] > >> I would be happy to accept the document >> you worked on as a contribution from DDGTS to OOo under the usual >> provisions--PDL for this worksheet, or, preferably, JCA, as it is >> less clumsy to use. > >Not going to happen. > >We spend time and money on developing and contributing documents (more >to follow) for the mutual benefit of the wider OSS Community, >ourselves included. > >We're developing Case Studies as well, which of course will also be >contributed so people are most welcome (and encouraged) to leverage >from, developing their own market materials with them. Then your case studies are basically to further DDGTS, yes? OOo can benefit--to fill in the gaps here--by your work; is that what you mean? The JCA, fwiw, allows for that, of course: you assign copyright to Sun while also doing what you like with your template, using, say, the CC for other OSS projects. You do understand how the joint copyright works? I mean, your response suggests you have this notion that it limits your activity. It doesn't. That said, the document we eventually use from OOo may likely not be identitical to the one that DDGTS distributes for its other purposes. I'll surely make some mods, or Erwin will, or someone else. We'll comply, of course, with the PDL requirements, which are not that burdensome, as CVS tracks all changes, but to reiterate the doc we distribute that is branded OOo may well differ from the one you use for your company's purposes. > > >> The JCA is a joint copyright agreement, meaning that >> you (DDGTS) can do what you wish with the document, anyway. > >Sorry Louis, but we feel the specific CC license we chose for this >manner is actually more flexible and better suited to living >documents. That's your choice, and it's your document. But we won't accept it under CC. > >I'm not great that we're not able to see eye-to-eye on this, but I >guess that happens sometimes. Perhaps we'll be able to see some >mutual way forward with this down the track. Hope so. Likewise. For instance, consider how the JCA actually works: * You sign JCA. We license it LGPL/SISSL and make changes freely. * You continue to license the *same* document CC and distribute it from your site and use it elsewhere. In effect, there are twinned documents, probably with some changes. You are still credited as the orignal author of the template used, but we (OOo) can freely make changes (and attribute them). You can further deploy your CC'd document as you please. Does that make it more appealing? In other words, signing the joint copyright agreement does not limit your ability to do what you want with your document; it only gives us the joint ability to do what we want with document's effective twin. Our faq explain this, too: <http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html#jca1> >Regards and best wishes, > >Justin Clift > Cheers, louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
