HI
>Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > >> We'll comply, of course, with the PDL requirements, which are not >> that burdensome, as CVS tracks all changes, > >The PDL requires you to give credit back to DDGTS. "Give back"? "Credit" is more what comes to mind. PDL rather simply requires that the original author be credited and that changes made by a contributor be documented, if not in the document then "by using an electronic program that automatically tracks changes to the Documentation," e.g., CVS. > >> You are still credited as the orignal author of the template used, > >That's not what you said last time. Really? I tried to see what you claim and couldn't find it, unless you mean that I am opposed to advertising in areas like this: I am. FWIW, OOo always tries to credit the work of those who contribute. If you create something, you merit credit. But credit is not advertising, and I opposed--and this may be what you mean--advertising. Your company would be credited, as I wrote before. I'd be happy to credit the original author. Credit, to restate, is not advertising. > >Also, you keep going over how with the JCA you get to keep your own >copyright. I wish you would accept the fact that people really do >understand that, it's not that difficult a concept. And that they >might still not like it. I accept that some people dislike the JCA's provisions: you, for instance. Others are not so offended. OOo has hundreds of signatories to the JCA (see <http://www.openoffice.org/copyright/copyrightapproved.html>) who do not feel as you do. > >If I share my copyright with you, that allows you to do anything you >want with my work. Maybe I don't want that. Maybe I only want you to >use my work under certain conditions (give me credit, share-alike, buy >me a piÃa colada, whatever). I'm bewildered that you say "you get to >keep the copyright over your own work" as if it were a great >concession from Sun. A great concession from Sun? That is an odd interpretation and not one that is meant. FWIW, the point of a copyright assignment is primarily to allow central coordination of copyright--a point I believe you granted earlier, when we first had this discussion (back in 2003). You had then stated that if it were not Sun you'd be happier about signing a JCA; that it was Sun you objected to ("Quite simply, I don't trust Sun"), as you felt that they could act arbitrarily and in their, not your, or the OSS community's, interests. (The full thread, from Nov. 2003, is here [1].) > >I only speak for myself here, but I find this attitude is more >off-putting than anything else. I don't mean this badly, but you may >want to re-think how you try to sell the JCA. From our perspective the issue is not the JCA. I have not encountered, save for yourself, any programmer who would refuse to donate code *because* of the JCA. They may object because of the size of the code, or because there is a serious lack of support services, or real information, like for .NET. > >Cheers, Daniel. Best, Louis [1] <http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/BrowseList?listName=users&from=47380 &to=47380&count=136&by=thread&paged=false> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
