On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 01:27, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffu...@tutopia.com> wrote: >> >> We have established that relicensing the existing OOo user >> guides (which are licensed CC-BY) to the Apache license >> is not practical. >> Does this mean, as Rob has suggested, that these guides >> *cannot* be part of the "official" documentation for AOOo >> or only *should not* be part of that doco? >> > Please excuse my ignorance ... > > If I understand well: > > Despite owning the domain and the servers, the official > documentation is not owned by Sun/Oracle (otherwise it > could be relicensed).
It's not clear to me that the user guides produced by ODFAuthors are in fact "official documentation" even though they are made available as ODT and PDF through the OOo wiki. > > The problem has some similarities with situation in the > forums. It's a transition process.. we have to live with > the ASF rules but there is a status quo that is doing > fine and we don't want to disrupt them. > > I would think for now we can keep them running > in the Wikimedia VM that was made for that but we > will have to make some transition plan: contact the > authors that can be contacted (no spiritism, please ;) ), > and transfer the documentation that is "copyright clean" > to the confluence wiki. That would be only a few scattered chapters, because so many people have worked on the docs over the years. And it only takes one person to say no, I don't agree to changing the license, and the chapter is contaminated. --Jean
