Peter Kupfer wrote:
Hmmm... Can't we just say we are using the part of the dual license we like?
No, we can't. We can only use a dual license while we meet the requisites of both licenses.
(Disclaimer: Trying to understand, not trying to argue.)
Why can we choose to follow the CC-BY & ignore the GPL when we publish. Obviously we can because you said we can, so I am trying to figure why that is not an issue of us only following one of the licenses.
1) I think it diminishes the work of the "Head" author
Yes. And that's just something we have to accept. At *most*, we can put "(maintainer)" next to the current maintainer, or something like that.
No license is perfect. Every license has drawbacks. Having to give people equal prominence is a very very minor thingie compared all the things we are gaining.
Agreed. As I said, if that is the trade we have to make, my life will go on and I won't be bothered by it. If this is the best of all worlds, sign me up!
2) Someone might e-mail me with questions when they should be directed at you.
They shouldn't be writing to either of us. The Feedback section says that feedback should go to this list.
In the previous version of the template it said you should contact the initial author with corrections or something like that. That info has been removed, so I guess it doesn't matter.
I guess if we have to do it a certain way to get into the CC-BY, then we have to do it. I guess this would be my biggest reservation at this point.
Peter, it's worth it. The PDL license we have right now is very restrictive. It is a significant burden for the editors, and we are on shaky legal ground because of the practical infeasibility of meeting all of its requirements (ie. keeping track of who changed what). Also, the PDL is a walled garden. Our work is isolated. Doesn't that miss the whole point of FOSS? What makes FOSS different from freeware is that you can modify the content.
On the other hand, the new license (GPL / CC-BY) is *easy* for us to meet, so we gain simplicity and legal certainty. In addition to that, it gives us enormous space for modification. It can be used with any GPL program, and also with any CC license.
I think this is a pretty good trade.
No argument. You asked for feedback, so I tried to provide it, not trying to make more work. :)
I totally agree that we should work on getting our work out there.
Like I said, IMO, the only real reservation I have is that I think the CC-BY takes the equal acknowledgment issue a bit far, however, that is a minor thing and if that is the only issue, then we will be in good shape.
A philosophical question: What is a license. Can't we just make up our own license. Are we required to follow one of these other licenses, or is it just easier?
1) If we want our work to go on the OOo website, we must provide it on an approved license. That means PDL or CC-BY.
Fair enough.
2) We are not lawyers. We can't just throw together a license.
Agree that we shouldn't, not that we couldn't.
3) If we could, we still shouldn't. License proliferation is one of the gravest problems hurting FOSS right now. This creates more than just confusion. It creates isolation, it causes incompatibility which prevents mixability. And the ability to modify and mix is the life and blood of FOSS. If we lose that, we're no better than freeware. Worse yet, the ability to mix is precisely what has made FOSS successful.
I had no idea this was an issue. I agree that we certainly shouldn't create a new license if this is an issue. Thanks for the info.
Have a good one!
-- Peter Kupfer OOo user since 'OO4 http://peschtra.tripod.com/open_office/ooo_front.htm
