Hi
>Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: <snip> >> That said, the document we eventually use from OOo may likely not be >> identitical to the one that DDGTS distributes for its other >> purposes. I'll surely make some mods, or Erwin will, or someone >> else. We'll comply, of course, with the PDL requirements, which are >> not that burdensome, as CVS tracks all changes, but to reiterate the >> doc we distribute that is branded OOo may well differ from the one >> you use for your company's purposes. > >Hi Louis, > >I understand the words you're saying, but don't understand why the >position you're coming from feels right to you. ;) It's not really only a question of "feel right" when it comes to licenses we can accept. We-OOo--can only accept for editable works the three: LGPL, SISSL, PDL, the first two of which are granted under the jCA. [Snip] >However, you're saying that for the OOo Community to accept it we >*must* either place it under the JCA or the GNU PDL, and if we do >that, have all mention of DDGTS removed from the document (apart from >in CVS history) and with the OOo Community only using that result. > It's not actually a GNU pdl, is it? But that's neither here nor there. I'm saying that this project doesn't want a non-editable work (which whould allow for the CC), only editable, which means we can only accept PDL or JCA licenses. We have no problems with giving credit where credit is due, only with advertising. An example might be the sort of credit granted to any of the FR or DE documents using the PDL; as well, if DDGTS likes, Erwin and I would be happy to list the company as contributing the document. >So... we get *no* credit for having hired Daniel and paid him to do >the work. No, you actually do get credit. You seem to be missing some of what I'm writing. I've written and write now again, that I am happy to give credit where credit is due, but not advertising. And as to licenses... well, I think it's clear now, no? > >That's the "unfair" point, and is not in good OSS style of giving >credit where it's due! It would be if I were saying that--but I never have. You seem to have misinterpreted me. Read over what i've written; or, to save time, read what I just wrote :-) > >To me that's just wrong. We're mentioned on the other documents/pages >that we host/sponsor/pay-for, so what gives? nothing: your misinterpretation. Again: I am opposed to advertising. Do you identify advertising with credit? I don't. Advertisiing is your logo on the support page. Credit is stating who wrote the document. Does this clear it up, Justin? Louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
