Hi,
So .. what you have done is to use a license that allows editing but
does not fit to the project's guidelines (GPL) and one, that does not
allow editing when used in the sense of the project.
What you said is inaccurate. You said "[the license] does not allow
editing in the sense of the project". The license fully allows
editing. If you choose to write guidelines that say "we will only use
this license on non-editable content" that was your choice, and it is
unfair to blame it on the license.
Ok .. still you don't want to get the point.
For you decision about the licensens: why ist it relevant for you to
comply with GPL and CC licenses?
Why is it relevant? Because we have a large number of volunteers and I
need to use their work in compliance with the terms they choose.
Thanks .. and you stop all contributors who are writing documentation
under PDL to include the documentation you provide.
Yes, it is right, that the work of OOo authors is posted to the OOo
website. But the content cannot be mixed with any existing OOo
documentation that is under PDL.
So .. speaking for the project (the project you are contributing to)
your documetation is not reusable.
And Sophie / Charles are absolutely right here: it's a community fork.
If you care more about the "the terms they choose" than about the terms
the OOo project choose, you are setting up such a fork.
You say, that you are providing documentation for OOo .. and that you
are part of ooo
Have you seen the contributing page? Have you seen my QA work? Have
you seen my proposed pages for different pages in OOo? Have you seen
the IRC talks? Have you seen my name on the community council? Don't
these things qualify me as part of OOo?
Daniel .. sorry for missunderstanding. It is not about *you* as a part
of the community. I know what you are doing for and within the community.
.. so the most important thing is to comply with our own guidelines.
The Creative Commons license is permitted by the guidelines. I have
done a lot of work that has resulted in about 40 high quality,
throughly reviewed chapters to be written and published on the
documentation project page. Isn't that worth something? Would you
rather not have them?
Of course I would like to have them. But (and I hope you really get the
point now):
I like to translate them, and mix them with our own content. In return
I'd like to provide some of the german documentations for you, so you
may include in them in your work.
But I cannot .. because "my" documentation is under PDL (ant that's well
known) but yours are not .. and there is no way to transfer content
between the documents.
If you go on and tell people to write more and more documentations under
GPL/CC, the situation will become even worse.
You also seem to think that we just changed the license on a whim. We
deliberated a lot. We felt the license we were using was causing a lot
of problems, and we were concerned. We moved to something that was
easier to use, gave us legal certainty, could be spread by more
people, and could still be put on the documentation project page. And
if you have a suggestion that can be better than what we have now I
will be very happy to hear it. Please read the "authors-license.odt"
document. Take a couple of days to think about how things would work,
and get back to me with a suggestion. I promise I'll listen with an
open mind and a willingness to change to something better.
It's very simple: use PDL, so that content can be exchanged.
I have read authors-license.odt and stille wonder why it was not the
main intention to comply with existing (and future) documents that are
developed at the OOo project.
André
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
