On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:07, Daniel Carrera wrote: >> One of the ported versions of the CC-BY license prohibits switching to >> CC-BY-SA.
> I did not know that. I am confident that OOoAuthors does not do that. Somebody (or rather, a whole group of somebodies) made an error localizing the unported CC-BY license for their country. (Roughly five ported licenses have clauses that are different from the unported version, Not a bad error rate, especially considering how Creative Commons constructs, and ports the licenses. ) > could come up with short of public domain. CC-BY is probably the closest of the Creative Commons non-depreciated licenses to that. > Personally, I think that having them link to the real OOoAuthors website > rather than theirs would satisfy the attribution requirement and should be > satisfactory from OOoAuthors' point of view. It should be within the book, not on an external site. Jean wrote: > I'm not assuming the clone site is run by someone looking to pocket the money > themselves. Possible. I don't understand the price difference for the PDF and hard copy. (It would make far more sense if the prices were reversed.) (My spreadsheet for Lulu publishing defaults to colour. Thus, I initially thought that the hard copy was losing money.) Frank wrote: > It is pretty obvious that this person is damaging the group's reputation. Obviously misleading. Not so obvious that it qualifies as "damage". :( xan jonathon
