Andre Schnabel wrote:
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.
Look, the license fully allows editing, and the .sxw are available for
you to use and edit. If you choose not to do it, you can't blame me for
that. I am not restricting your ability to edit the files at all.
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.
Yes, I am in the CC, and I was in the discussion that made the Creative
Commons license, and I'm telling you that this "issue" is artificial.
The files are right there for you to download in editable form, they are
in a license that allows modification, and you can post your work on the
OOo website, and we *are* posting our work on the website. And how come
it's okay with other people use the CreativeCommons license (e.g.
marketing plan) and put up a PDF file without providing sources but it's
wrong when I put up a PDF file and *do* provide sources?
Chers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) Leave your mark at OpenOffice.org
/\/_/
/\/_/ OOoAuthors: http://oooauthors.org
\/_/ Knowledge Base: http://mindmeld.cybersite.com.au/
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
