On Tuesday 08 March 2005 09:40 am, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > Daniel is discussing licenses for OOoAuthors work: > >The only reason why we have been using [the PDL] is because it was > > the only license OOo would allow for documentation. To pick > > anything else would mean that the files could not go to the OOo > > website. > > > >However... > >The Community Council just approved the use of the Creative > >Commons Attribution license for non-editable material (like PDF > > files): > > > >http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=56 > >4 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ > ><snip> > >Changing license is not a decision we should take lightly, though. > > But there are very strong reasons why we might want to. > > Furthermore, *if* we are going to change license, the time to do it > > is *now*, before the 2.0 release. > > > >Do you think we should start a discussion about the idea of changing > >licenses to the Creative Commons Attribution ? > > I definitely think we should discuss this idea, so I'll start. :-) > > In a follow-up note, Daniel said: > >Some pros for switching: > > * Because most people don't use PDL, our work is inside a "walled > > garden" and can't be embedded into other work. > > > > In contrast, the CC community is large and growing. > > > > * The PDL is inconvenient to use. <snip> > > > > In contrast, the CC attribution license is really easy to use. > > > >Some cons: > > * The switch would require rewriting any chapter whose owner > > cannot be located. > > Here is my opinion. > > I think we should seriously discuss changing the license under which > we're publishing docs, and using a CC license. I know I would be > happier with a CC license -- both as a contributor and as an editor > (the latter because of trying to keep track of who has done what). I > agree with Daniel's "pros"; these are good reasons for switching. > > Regarding Daniel's "con", I suspect that most of the chapters in that > category (owner cannot be located) 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. > > The main question is whether everybody who is contributing to V2 docs > would be happy with the CC Attribution license (or at least more > happy than with the PDL). > > So, people, please speak up! In particular, does anyone object to the > CC license, and if so why? > > Cheers, Jean
My two cents worth: It does not matter one way or the other to me. I'm happy contributing what I can to this project. As long as I can do this, I'm fine. I will let those who understand these two licenses better than I do work this out. I have no problems with any documents I author being put under either license. However, the CC Attribution license does look like a better choice since it is less restrictive. Dan
