Hi Daniel and Jean,
Jean, I'll answer to your mail here also because I'm short in time now.
Daniel Carrera wrote:
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 designed the PDL based on the FDL. But the protected parts were
not what we wanted from what I remember. The CC-BY is accepted for non
editable material.
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'm choosing a license for the contributors of the OOo project, not only
for me. The license we have chosen until now has permitted to a lot of
contributors to share their work in a very safe manner for them and
their work.
But I agree with Jean that contributors may have different points of
view about the licensing of their work and that we should may be examine
other choices.
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.
We are OOo contributors, happy and proud to be OOo contributors, why do
you want us to provide our work else where ;)
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
Those are only the translation of the worldwide piece, but at the moment
an adaptation of the license has been made per jurisdictions, this is
that adaptation that apply for the concerned country. So this one for
France (see the title 2.0 France) for example
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/fr/. On the site it is
specified that the translation for Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
has been made. That was for the 1.0 version of the license and has been
ported to 2.0 version (not 2.5 from what is indicated on the site).
I'll wait for the answer of CERSA to know if a different kind of CC is
available in France now.
You may know that a large part of people in France are fighting against
the DADVSI (see http://eucd.info/index.php?English-readers). So choosing
a license is a very important mean for your contributors and your project.
And I'm not saying that CC is bad or good, but just that before saying
that it is good, we *must* check that each of our contributors will be
protected at the level he asks for in contributing to our project.
Imho, another side is to examine too, the multiplication of accepted
license could also be difficult to handle and could be confusing for our
contributors too. It's difficult to know all the effects of a license in
the countries they are to be used.
Jean : as for the public domain, this license has not been discussed
from what I remember through our project. This is a very complicated
license too where several different interpretations could be made wether
you're under the US jurisdictions, British, etc.
Another point is, from what I understand from my readings, this is not
clear how you could release work under public domain license and in
which country it's possible before the expiration delay.
If you have time, I think the Wikipedia page should give a lot of
informations about it in several jurisdiction :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
Kind regards
Sophie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
