Sophie Gautier wrote:
We have written the PDL in that way because we wanted to protect professional author writing under their name. And a lot of our contributors are professional authors and are really happy with this notification. This is really not difficult to handle from what we have seen during the last years.
I totally understand why some professional authors want to have their work under the PDL. I do not want to take away that choice from those authors who want to have it, and who are willing to put up with the "change log" requirements of the license.
However, not all of us (even some professional writers like myself) feel the need for this protection. Why should those of us who do not want or need the protection of the PDL be required to submit to it and its requirements? Why can't we choose a CC license and have our work accepted in editable form by OOo?
The CC is in charge of which license apply to the project. If you think that our license are bad or wrong, please submit a request to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will do that. But understand, I do not think the license choice itself is bad or wrong; I think it is too limited, and the requirement that *everyone* must use the chosen license for editable work is wrong.
The PDL has been designed by the documentation project to protect our documentation and authors. And unfortunately I've been able to see that it is true. A license is done for that, when somebody try to keep away the documentation from its author and the PDL is really good for this, this is what we ask to a license.
Again I ask, what if authors do not want that level of protection? Why should they be forced to accept it?
I've just spent a bit of time looking on the OOo site to see if work put into the public domain would be allowed on the website. It's not clear, but perhaps I just have not found the right place.
Regards, Jean --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
