Scott Carr wrote:
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
I've just spent a bit of time looking on the OOo site to see if work
put into the public domain would be allowed on the website. It's not
clear, but perhaps I just have not found the right place.
Yes, public domain documentation is allowed. The only
Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
I must be missing something here! The licence I intend to use -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/
permits derivative works. That doesn't sound non-editable to me.
What Louis means is that OOo will o
Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
Scott Carr wrote:
[cut]
The OpenOffice.org project tries to keep everyones interest in mind.
Corporate as well as individual. Please see my earlier response.
Everyone is free to create documentation in the license of their
choice. We will be happy to link to it f
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 18:46 +0100, Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
> Scott Carr wrote:
> [cut]
>
> > The OpenOffice.org project tries to keep everyones interest in mind.
> > Corporate as well as individual. Please see my earlier response.
> >
> > Everyone is free to create documentation in the licen
Scott Carr wrote:
Hi Scott,
Anyone can submit their work to the project as Public Domain. Public
Domain documents mean that ANYONE can do ANYTHING with the document.
There is no thought or legal problem about the document or submission,
because there isn't a need, it is in the Public Domain
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hi Daniel,
The CC is actually very aware of jurisdictions, and for each
jurisdiction there is a license written by lawyers in that jurisdiction
who know the local laws.
If I select one or another, only the 2.5 CC-BY is appearing, so does
the 2.0 CC-BY-SA apply in Germ
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
I must be missing something here! The licence I intend to use -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/
permits derivative works. That doesn't sound non-editable to me.
What Louis means is that OOo will only accept a CC document if
Scott Carr wrote:
[cut]
The OpenOffice.org project tries to keep everyones interest in mind.
Corporate as well as individual. Please see my earlier response.
Everyone is free to create documentation in the license of their
choice. We will be happy to link to it from the Third Party page. T
Sophie Gautier wrote:
PDL says identify instead of describing... But this not the topic of the
discussion here, that was your assertion that changes are never tracked
Maybe I didn't explain myself well. When I say "track changes" what I
mean is keeping a record of what was changed. For exampl
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Carrera wrote:
[...]
Hi Sophie. I think you are referring to this section:
[Requirements:]
Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to
it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher
of the Modified Version as given on th
Sophie Gautier wrote:
I don't think that's right. None of the open source licenses have a
requirement to track changes, and there are some very smart lawyers
who have worked on "open source" since before it was called open
source, and none of them have added this sort of requirement to any
FOS
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Scott Carr wrote:
If you can not prove where every piece of the document comes from, and
who worked on it, then you are basically giving up the document.
I don't think that's right. None of the open source licenses have a
requirement to track changes, and the
Scott Carr wrote:
I don't think that's right. None of the open source licenses have a
requirement to track changes, and there are some very smart lawyers
who have worked on "open source" since before it was called open
source, and none of them have added this sort of requirement to any
FOSS li
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Scott Carr wrote:
We cannot store the editable document on OpenOffice.org, you would
have to store it on your own server, or you could place it on
OOoAuthors.org. We would only be able to store the PDF under that
license.
It's important to realize that this is OOo poli
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Scott Carr wrote:
If you can not prove where every piece of the document comes from,
and who worked on it, then you are basically giving up the document.
I don't think that's right. None of the open source licenses have a
requirement to track changes, and there are some
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
[snip]
Again I ask, what if authors do not want that level of protection? Why
should they be forced to accept it?
I've just spent a bit of time looking on the OOo site to see if work
put into the public domain would be allowed on the website. It's not
clear, but perh
Scott Carr wrote:
We cannot store the editable document on OpenOffice.org, you would have
to store it on your own server, or you could place it on
OOoAuthors.org. We would only be able to store the PDF under that license.
It's important to realize that this is OOo policy, not a problem with
Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
I must be missing something here! The licence I intend to use -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/
permits derivative works. That doesn't sound non-editable to me.
What Louis means is that OOo will only accept a CC document if you give
it in a forma
Scott Carr wrote:
If you can not prove where every piece of the document comes from, and
who worked on it, then you are basically giving up the document.
I don't think that's right. None of the open source licenses have a
requirement to track changes, and there are some very smart lawyers who
Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
[cut]
The CC is an option *only* for noneditable work. We describe the
policy on the CC here:
http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/protocols_proposing.html. I am
actually surprised at this query: we've had long and public
discussions on lic
Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
[snip]
Again I ask, what if authors do not want that level of protection?
Why should they be forced to accept it?
I've just spent a bit of time looking on the OOo site to see if work
put into the public domain would be allowed on the website. It's not
clear, but pe
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
[cut]
The CC is an option *only* for noneditable work. We describe the policy
on the CC here:
http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/protocols_proposing.html. I am
actually surprised at this query: we've had long and public discussions
on license regimes and have settle
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Sophie Gautier wrote:
We have written the PDL in that way because we wanted to protect
professional author writing under their name. And a lot of our
contributors are professional authors and are really happy with this
notification. This is really not difficult to ha
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
More thoughts on this...
I have never understood why *all* documentation must be subject to the
same limited selection of licenses.
[snip]
Licensing is an interesting beast. Always has been. One of the
problems that exist with any kind of Open Source documentation
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Sophie Gautier wrote:
We have written the PDL in that way because we wanted to protect
professional author writing under their name. And a lot of our
contributors are professional authors and are really happy with this
notification. This is really not difficult to ha
anusha, buming and jljaschulke,
As our newest members, let me say, "Welcome to you".
As you have joined our merry little group today, I encourage you to
subscribe to dev@documentation.openoffice.org mailing list (low volume)
then take a pass through the task list http://tinyurl.com/ohdbn and
s
Sophie Gautier wrote:
I'm choosing a license for the contributors of the OOo project, not only
for me. The license we have chosen until now has permitted to a lot of
contributors to share their work in a very safe manner for them and
their work.
But I agree with Jean that contributors may have
Hi Daniel and Jean,
Jean, I'll answer to your mail here also because I'm short in time now.
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Sophie Gautier wrote:
We have never accepted documentation under GPL or LGPL licence.
I wasn't saying you did. I was just answering to Peter's email with my
analysis of several
Sophie Gautier wrote:
Oups, the mozmanual use : http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.0.php
May be we should use this one, or this one...
Oh, I just noticed: "The Author has ceased to use or recommend this
license". This must be part of the license clean-up initiative, to
reduce the use of
Sophie Gautier wrote:
We have never accepted documentation under GPL or LGPL licence.
I wasn't saying you did. I was just answering to Peter's email with my
analysis of several possible licenses for documentation. Notice that I
also mentioned the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA which you don't accept e
Sophie Gautier wrote:
We have written the PDL in that way because we wanted to protect
professional author writing under their name. And a lot of our
contributors are professional authors and are really happy with this
notification. This is really not difficult to handle from what we have
se
31 matches
Mail list logo
