Jean wrote:
>The Community Council just approved the use of the Creative
Commons Attribution license for non-editable material (like PDF files):
Define "non-editable".
That said, I am much happier with CC, than PDL.
> and using a CC license. I know I would be happier with a CC license
+1
>both as a contributor and as an editor (the latter because of trying
to keep track of who has done what).
I can't put my finger on it, but there is something else that is
chronically wrong with the PDL. On a line by line basis, there is
nothing that is outstandingly obnoxious, but overall, it is extremely
obnoxious.
>probably need rewriting anyway for V2.
> One possible problem is Andrew Pitonyak's macros chapter; I'd have to ask him
> and the publisher if a license change is acceptable.
I was under the impression he changed it from CC attribution to PDL,
so it could be part of the OOo Doocumentation.
> So, people, please speak up! In particular, does anyone object to the CC
> license, and if so why?
Diane is right, in that we can't change everything to the CC licence,
without getting the permission of the individual authors.
Question:
Which of the sixteen or so varients of the CC licence are we talking about?
xan
jonathon
--
A Fork requires:
Seven systems with:
1+ GHz Processors
2+ GB RAM
0.25 TB Hard drive space
