Hi Louis,
Louis Suarez-Potts schrieb:
That seems good to me, too... But I'd rather not allow for even the
possibility of proprietary licenses on the wiki, which the wording
suggested seems to permit, as does our current wording. Ie, I want
open licenses.
whatever is meant by proprietary licenses regarding documentation ...
the most proprietary license is no license at al, as this will imply
copyright (the current situation).
Thus,
"Content posted after [date] is Public Domain except where otherwise
noted, in which case copyright holders may use the Public Document
License (PDL), as noted in the License page of OpenOffice.org,
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html. (Residents of countries that
do not accept the provisions of the PDL may use an equivalent license,
though we ask that you check with the Community Council beforehand.)
Content posted prior to the date above is copyrighted Sun Microsystems
and the contributing authors."
When can this be put into place?
If the people here agree with the above (not sure of the clause
excepting the PDL and how much bureaucracy that would create, nor if
such "checking" is needed; I have in mind the creation of a list of
licenses that can be used by countries that can't use the PDL), then
the CC could vote this week.
I agree as long as:
- "may use" does not exclude other free licenses (e.g. Creative commons)
I'd rather have the proposed list of "favorite" licenses - but this may
be the next step.
- we add this notice to the edit pages (these currently have a notice
that content can be changed by any wiki member and that you must not
submit content without original authors permission)
André
-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
