Hi,
This is not to argue, this is a simple choice he has made.
If we need a tool for the documentation project, so we make it
compatible with our work flow and our licences.
The tool is fully compatible with your license. The tool does not
enforce any license. For example, the Germaphone project is using it
to make PDL work.
just to interfere: There *is* definately confusion about the licenses at
OOoAuthorts.
But I'd like to resolve this within the germanophone team first. .. but
from what I can tell, the people at OOoAuthors sem to think, that GPL/CC
is a general decision.
You make your choice to be part of the OOo project or not. When
contributors come to the project and don't accept the PDL, they put
their documentation elsewhere and you put the link to it on our site,
that's all.
Though consider that the PDL is not the only license that is allowed
for material going to the OOo website.
It is the only license for materials in editable formats. And as said on
IRC .. OpenSource documentation that is not editable (per license) is
nonsense.
That's why I asked you to point to the documents at the OOoAuthors side
(but even this is juast a workaraound .. the better way was to see
editable content at the OOo website).
When we changed license I didn't imagine anyone would have an issue
because we were using a license that was permitted at OOo.
Daniel .. you are member of the CC, so you should have been one of the
first persons to see the problem and avoid it. Discussion about the
"accepted" project licenses has taken place within the CC .. and it was
clearly stated, that PDL is for editable content, CreativeCommons for
non-editable documents.
André
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
