On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:34, Wolfgang Uhlig wrote: > I am not at all familiar with licenses, I must admit (shame), but shouldn't > we discuss a possibility to change our documentation to kind of "freeware" so > that nobody else can make money out of them?
The only Creative Commons license that _might_ require distribution be gratis, also prohibits it from being used by organizations that do not have 501 (c) 3 status in the US, or the equivalent in other countries. At least if one goes by the closest thing to an official Creative Commons Foundation explanation of what the licenses mean. I will grant that MIT has a slightly different interpretation of that lciense. The Dutch organization that collects royalties has a third interpretation of that license. xan jonathon -- OOo can not correct for incompetence in creating documents from MSO. Furthermore,OOo can not compensate for the defective and flawed security measures used by Microsoft. As such, before using this product for exams that require faulty and defective software, ensure that you will not be unjustly penalized for the incompetence of the organization that requires the use of software that is known to be flawed, defective, bug-ridden, and fails to meet ISO file format standards.
