Sophie Gautier wrote:
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.
Ok.
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 ;)
Yes. But the goal of open source is sharing. That's what makes us
different from closed source. You could apply the same argument you
wrote for a closed license (e.g. "you are not allowed to modify this
work ouside OOo"). The PDL is a "semi-closed" license (allows outside
modification, but makes it difficult). I'm not saying that's wrong (SO
is propietary and we don't complain). Some people may prefer a
semi-closed license. I could also call the FDL semi-closed. The FDL
allows you to say "you can modify this part, but not that one".
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/.
I stand corrected. I got the wrong URL.
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).
Ok. Now that you mention it, I did hear something about that once. That
the iCommons licenses were only updated up to 2.0. One solution is to
just use 2.0. The difference between 2.0 and 2.5 is small. 2.5 allows
you (the author) to denote a third party for attribution, for example,
OOo. So the attribution can say "documentation by the OOo team" instead
of naming all the individual contributors.
You may know that a large part of people in France are fighting against
the DADVSI (see http://eucd.info/index.php?English-readers).
No, I wasn't aware of this. I totally understand that you'll want to
take licenses very seriously and choose carefully.
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.
Understood.
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.
Good point.
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
Public domain is not a license. It means "I claim no personal ownership
to this work, it belongs to everyone".
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.
Ok.
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]
