Jonathon Blake wrote: > Define "non-editable".
PDF counts. Anything can be edited of course. The "intent" of the community council was to separate things like images and PDFs from HTML and SXW files. > That said, I am much happier with CC, than PDL. :-) > > 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. Yes, I've felt that too. In my case, I think it might be that the PDL feels like a walled garden. Whereas a CC license would make me part of a huge community, and a movement. But in any event, there are certainly lots of easy to pin down issues that merit discussion. > Diane is right, in that we can't change everything to the CC licence, > without getting the permission of the individual authors. Yes, she's right. And we weren't intending to. I think Jean's email was misinterpreted. Jean was trying to say the same thing that Diane said. That's why Jean talked about rewriting those works. > Question: > > Which of the sixteen or so varients of the CC licence are we talking about? CC attribution: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is the only CC license that the community council approved. Fortunately, it's probably the one I would have chosen. It's the one that gives us most flexibility in the future. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
