On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 06:25 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > Andre Schnabel wrote: > >> Please explain what "this change has not been passed through" means,? > >> > >> Bearing in mind that: > >> i) It was discussed in the Community Council Meetings; > >> ii) It was approved by the Community Council meetings; > >> iii) Daniel said in a Community Council meeting that OOoAuthors was > >> going to use a dual licence for documentation. > >> > >> > > Could we please stay with the facts? .. that means: please point to the > > archives, where this can be verified, od stop the discussion as it is > > pointless. > > Here is a note from Louis, related to the minutes of a CC meeting > held 2005-01-20 which included agreement to update the Guidelines > to include the Creative Commons Attribution license as an option > for non-editable (read-only) material. > > http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgId=1757713 > > Here is the log of that meeting: > http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgId=1742923 > > Jean
I do not see a decision. Hmm, discussed yes. The net result is that it has been considered. As far as documentation itself goes, Scott and Louis have said that PDL for editable material and PDF only for any other license. I abide by their instructions. As an outside group, OOoAuthors is free to use whatever license it likes. I have no problem with that. Just that items from OOoAuthors must be non-editable to be included on http://documentation.openoffice.org/ This is certainly in keeping with the links you provided but, where does it say that these are what OOo will use? -- PLEASE KEEP MESSAGES ON THE LIST. OpenOffice.org Documentation Co-Lead http://documentation.openoffice.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
