Hi Jean, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
No, I was not saying or suggesting that. I've got a bit lost in this thread... were you or someone asking earlier if the specific situation of the OOoAuthors choice of license had been discussed at CC?
It was a mail by Jonathon Blake who said, that Daniel suggested a license change to cc, it has been discussed there and accepted.
If so, then of course the answer is no, but I don't see why it should have been discussed there.
Because nobody within the OOo-community could now blame Daniel for not doing it. Some people now blame Daniel for setting up a community fork. This could have been prevented.
And furthermore .. I don't think it's a good idea to have two lines of documentation, that could not be mixed because of licensing issues. This *must* lead to discussion that we are not "one" community :-(
Scott Carr, as Lead of the Documentation Project, agreed that it was okay to for OOoAuthors to post the PDFs only at Docs, and keep the editable content on the OOoAuthors site.
So I would blame Scott as well. André --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
