Am Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:09:59 -0400 Linda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Janet M. Swisher wrote: > > > Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > >> Jonathon Blake wrote: > >> > >>> One of the issues with the PDL, is that we don't know what constitutes > >>> a change that has to be listed. > >>> > >>> So how does this proposal avoid us from having to track those changes? > >> > >> > >> > >> You can make a document, and later decide to license it under the PDL > >> as "original documentation". Because it's "original documentation" > >> you don't need to list a history of changes. > >> > >> Now say you and your friends make a few changes to the document > >> without using the PDL. You publish a new version, and let people use > >> this new version as a new "original documentation". So you don't have > >> the burden of posting all the changes that you made between the two > >> versions. > >> > >> This is what we would be doing. > >> > >> Reminder: I am not a lawyer. > >> > > > > [...] > > In short, it sounds like you're saying that publishing as PDL > > "original documentation", combined with the other license options, > > provides an "escape" whereby we don't have to track modifications > > for the PDL. > > > > Is that correct? > > > Also how does this effect content we still have by authors no longer > active? Do we have to find the authors again and go through the entire, > "I agree" process again for the PDL so the content can be used by OOo? I'm also not a lawyer, but I guess, since the first drafts of these chapters have already been under the PDL, (the license-change was during writing the different chapters) I would say, that we don't need to ask them once again... This is just *my* opinion. Sigrid
