Daniel: you don't get the point: you ignore our project's guidelines. that's it.
I repeat myself .. you don'T get the point.
Besides, this wasn't how I read the guideline. The guideline says "we will accept non-editable files if hey are CreativeCommons Attribution". In other words, the *objective* of the guideline was to allow in content that was not editable. It was not to limit what we would allow as non-editable content. It's really really silly to accept non editable content under a license and then reject the editable file.
It is silly to claim to write documentation for the OOo project (and stating to be part of the Ooo project) and switch away from the license, that is used for developing documentation within the project.
We needed a guideline for non-editable content, as people are providing case studies, interviews an similar things, that defnately should *not* be changed. Therefore the CC was "allowed" at the OOo website. This didn't change the fact, that PDL should be used for content that should be editable (in the way, that we look for people who contribute to such documents).
So .. what you have done is to use a license that allows editing but does not fit to the project's guidelines (GPL) and one, that does not allow editing when used in the sense of the project.
It's very easy to resolve that: leave the license for the 2.0 guide as it is ( well .. shit happens) but make clear, that any new document should be developed under PDL.
For you decision about the licensens: why ist it relevant for you to comply with GPL and CC licenses? You say, that you are providing documentation for OOo .. and that you are part of ooo .. so the most important thing is to comply with our own guidelines.
André --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
