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/>
As a member of the CC I attended the meeting where the inclusion of the Creative Commons license was discussed. The full log is here: http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=discuss&msgNo=512 As an aside, I thought that the CC-BY license was only being considered for OOo to be able to include articles and smaller works that had been previously published in other media on the www.openoffice.org site rather than linking to them.
For editable material, we require the PDL or JCA (which defaults to LGPL or SISSL). The PDL may be used with the JCA.
We did go on to talk about documentation at length. The preferred licenses are PDL or LGPL/SISSL (if you have signed the JCA).
For me it is much easier having signed a JCA. Any contributions I make to OpenOffice.org, unless I explicitly state PDL, are LGPL/SISSL.
To be distributed with the software, PDL or LGPL/SISSL is necessary.
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.
I am interested in the new OOoAuthors license[1], but it appears to me that to use GPL/CC-BY, you still need to attach a copy of the full GPL to each item, see: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00309.html and http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html
This is one of things I do not like about the PDL, i.e. appending the license to every item. If you have to include the GPL with every item, it is no better than the PDL in this regard.
Also, as the preferred licenses are PDL and LGPL/SISSL (JCA), do you still think that the OOoAuthors work should feature prominently on the www.openoffice.org site within the Documentation Project ? Other works that are contributed and or edited on third-party sites are listed in a section for this purpose.
I feel that the OpenOffice.org Documentation Project needs to encourage contributions from people that accept the preferred licenses.
[1] I prepare documentation and material for distribution for OSS and I always use the license associated with the software.
Regards Jacqueline
