Andre Schnabel wrote:
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.
What you said is inaccurate. You said "[the license] does not allow
editing in the sense of the project". The license fully allows editing.
If you choose to write guidelines that say "we will only use this
license on non-editable content" that was your choice, and it is unfair
to blame it on the license.
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.
I'm willing to look for alternatives. Please, take a look at the
document I wrote explaining the reasons behind the license choice and
make a suggestion. I am willing to listen to any constructive suggestion
you make. Honestly. And if there's a way to change the way we work so
that you are happy and we still meet the criteria we wanted (e.g. easy
to use, legal certainty, open licensing) I will be happy to do it.
For you decision about the licensens: why ist it relevant for you to
comply with GPL and CC licenses?
Why is it relevant? Because we have a large number of volunteers and I
need to use their work in compliance with the terms they choose.
You say, that you are providing documentation for OOo .. and that you
are part of ooo
Have you seen the contributing page? Have you seen my QA work? Have you
seen my proposed pages for different pages in OOo? Have you seen the IRC
talks? Have you seen my name on the community council? Don't these
things qualify me as part of OOo?
.. so the most important thing is to comply with our own
guidelines.
The Creative Commons license is permitted by the guidelines. I have done
a lot of work that has resulted in about 40 high quality, throughly
reviewed chapters to be written and published on the documentation
project page. Isn't that worth something? Would you rather not have them?
You also seem to think that we just changed the license on a whim. We
deliberated a lot. We felt the license we were using was causing a lot
of problems, and we were concerned. We moved to something that was
easier to use, gave us legal certainty, could be spread by more people,
and could still be put on the documentation project page. And if you
have a suggestion that can be better than what we have now I will be
very happy to hear it. Please read the "authors-license.odt" document.
Take a couple of days to think about how things would work, and get back
to me with a suggestion. I promise I'll listen with an open mind and a
willingness to change to something better.
Cheers,
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]
