Hi Sorry for delay... traveling and mail issues.
>Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: ><snip> >> Does this clear it up, Justin? > >A bit... I'm still not clear on how we'd be mentioned in the document >(ie. given credit where due) if we release it under one of the licenses >you're preferring. Not really a simple question of my preferences. It's a question of overall project policy. My suggestion is that on the last page, discretely, we list copyright information, eg., Copyright DDGTS[/or Daniel], Licensed under PDL. For more information, see <http://bizdev.openoffice.org/contributors.html>, and DDGTS or Daniel (or both) would be listed. This way, the document is pretty clean and is about OOo *and* you get credit. >As an alternative for the future, how do we go about getting the "list >of acceptable licenses for OOo" to possibly include the CC licenses? >The PDL is on there, so it must have gone through some kind of review >process, so I'm wondering if we can get the CC licenses (or some of >them anyway) reviewed for suitability as well. The last CC meeting authorized the use of the Creative Commons license for non-editable work, with the clear message that we preferred editable work. To change the overall license, the agenda@ is a the usual pathway. > >That might make stuff more flexible in the future, which could be helpful. There is flexibility and then... there is this point: not everything has to be done on OOo. Quite honestly, I rather prefer a license scheme in which the contributor assigns copyright (jointly or no) to the governing project. It's easier to manage. But not to go through the tedium of the argument all over again, I fully recognize that copyright assignment (joint or no) depends on trust. Cheers Louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
