Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Linda wrote:
I guess it is still my question. We agreed to the PDL for the old
content, then we said no the CC for revised and new content. So
technically the new revised content is only under the CC lic. None
of the new content falls under the PDL since we made the change for
V2 if I am understanding this correctly. If this is true then we
would need approval for the content to be used under the PDL.
IANAL also, but I think we are already covered. Here's why:
The registration form (http://oooauthors.org/join_form) for the
OOoAuthors website includes a checkbox labelled thus:
[ ] I agree that all documents I add here are available under the PDL
license.
and you cannot join unless you check that box.
Anyone who joined long ago and has since disappeared would have agreed
to that statement. New members would also have agreed to that
statement, even though the explanatory statement at the top of the
page says "you are also agreeing that the content you add to this site
falls under the PDL license, unless otherwise indicated on a folder".
Because the explanatory wording can be interpreted to slightly
contradict the official form, that wording can (and should) be changed.
Jean
So if the above is true then why the problems with OOo if in fact the
documentation is still falling under the PDL only on a sublevel? They
state they cannot use our documentation due to CC yet we are saying on
some level it is still under the PDL. I am just trying to understand
the fuss if in fact everything we do at Authors is under the PDL blanket
then OOo should be able to use the sxw files.
