Hello,
>Scott Carr wrote: >>Daniel Carrera wrote: >> >>>Should we wait until we finish the migration to the new template and >>>copyright? >>> >>>Pro: It creates a "clean" break in license. UG 1 is PDL, UG 2 is >>>GPL/BY. Con: Delay. >>Please keep in mind that if the License changes to GPL/BY, I can no >>longer post them to the Documentation project. To post on OOo, the >>document has to be PDL or SISSL or LGPL. The PDL license is better >>because it lists all of the contributors, or at least it should for >>these purposes. Scott is correct... with an emendation. We (OOo site) can accept non-editable material licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution license. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> For editable material, we require the PDL or JCA (which defaults to LGPL or SISSL). The PDL may be used with the JCA. We also accept Public Domain material. See <http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/protocols_proposing.html#settingup> > >According to a note to this list (see below) from Daniel on 8 March, >OOo the Creative Commons attribution license is now acceptable for >items posted on the OOo website. Only for items that are non-editable. And even then, our preference is for Public Domain or assignation to the project. Best Louis
