On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 17:12 +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote: > Hi, > > > G. Roderick Singleton schrieb: > > Further, as a member of the CC I recommend that you implement the > > changes necessary so that the documentation project can use material > > generated on the wiki. > > I cannot heal things that have been missed whe the wiki started. So I > cannot apply any licensing terms to stuff that is already on the wiki. > If I did it was simply illegal. > > > In the meantime, we are stuck with the current > > set of imposed restrictions. > > > > No - if there is something put to the wiki, authors should write a > licensing notice. > > Take Jean's example: there is a documentation available under Creative > Commons license. This might be put to the wiki with a disclaimer that it > is under Creative Commons. Unfortunately it cannot be mixed with stuff > here at the documentation project, as we now, that our documetnations > are under PDL. > This is a sad situation - but woul it help to establish yet another > restriction? > > What would happen if we allow PDL-only documentations at the wiki? > Simple as that: Jean's material would not be published at the wiki but > somwhere far away from the OOo site. > > What would happen if we allow Creative Commons at the ooo website? Would > it help to mix current docs with CC documentation? No it wouldn't, as no > matter what our rules say the licenses are not compatible. > > Btw. Louis attempt was to put all wiki content under LGPL - this would > have been even worse for documentation (PDL and LGPL dont fit very > well). But this was only by request of Nakata Maho who considers all his > contributions at the wiki to be LGPL. >
You seemed to have missed the point. What goes on the wiki is fine by me. However, as I pointed out, the only editable stuff permitted on the documentation project must follow the licensing set down by the CC. We have managed to extend things to include non-editable files under other licenses but only after much hassle. Thus, in the end, anything on the wiki tends to be useless. So I ask again, please change the rules. -- G. Roderick Singleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenOffice.org
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
