Sophie Gautier wrote:
We have never accepted documentation under GPL or LGPL licence.
I wasn't saying you did. I was just answering to Peter's email with my
analysis of several possible licenses for documentation. Notice that I
also mentioned the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA which you don't accept either.
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.
You are free to choose the PDL for your work if you like and I'm glad
you're happy with it. I wouldn't take that choice away from you. I was
just expressing my opinion and why I choose a different license for my
work. If I release work under a free license it's because I want it
shared, so I choose a license that is "conductive" to sharing.
I realize that the PDL is not difficult to handle for you, because you
use CVS. This is the lock-in effect I talked about. The license is easy
to use inside OOo using CVS and hard to use outside.
Now, it's not clear what is applying in which jurisdiction for the CC.
The CC is actually very aware of jurisdictions, and for each
jurisdiction there is a license written by lawyers in that jurisdiction
who know the local laws.
If I select one or another, only the 2.5 CC-BY is appearing, so does the
2.0 CC-BY-SA apply in Germany, France, Italy ?
If you choose 2.5 CC-BY-SA, you have:
Germany:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.de
France:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.fr
Italy:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.it
Incidentally, Mozilla uses the CC-BY-SA.
Oups, the mozmanual use : http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php
May be we should use this one, or this one...
Hmm... I got confused by the fact that the Mozilla *website* is
CC-BY-SA. But it looks like different documents have different licenses.
The Firefox tutorial is CC-BY (without the 'SA').
I've read the AFL, and we had a discussion about it on the Creative
Commons list. Over all, it looks like a good license, though it was
written with physical works in mind (not digital) and it's less popular
than the "big" licenses.
Best,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/
/\/_/ A life? Sounds great!
\/_/ Do you know where I could download one?
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
