More thoughts on this...
I have never understood why *all* documentation must be subject
to the same limited selection of licenses.
For a big project like the User Guide, of course all
contributions to it need to be under the same license. And I
realise that whatever one is picked, then some people won't like
it. So in that sense my previous note erred in using that as an
example, though my main point is still valid: if people choose
not to contribute because of licensing, IMO OOo loses a lot more
than the individuals do.
For stand-alone docs like tutorials, why can't the rules of OOo
allow the author(s) of those to choose a CC license for the
source files? Or indeed for any docs, even done by a group such
as OOoAuthors -- why cannot their source files be licensed under
CC? Every document says what its license is, so anyone
considering reusing it will know what it is. And the users don't
care what the license is; they just want the information!
I have no objection to people who prefer to provide
documentation to OOo under the LGPL (via JCA) and PDL, but what
is the problem with allowing another choice, such as CC-BY-SA, as
an alternative for those who prefer it?
--Jean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
