Hi *, On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:10:35AM +0100, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Andre Schnabel wrote: > > >So .. speaking for the project (the project you are contributing to) > >your documetation is not reusable. > > Wouldn't it have been easier to say that at the beginning instead of > just repeating "it's not our preferred license"? > > Please give me a few days to think about this then. When we chose the > license we were not thinking of borrowing existing documentation because > there wasn't much we could borrow anyways. We /were/ thinking about > other people reusing our work.
Who will use GPL for documentation? > And we picked a license that we felt > accomplished that. Please please please read the "authors-license.odt" > file so you can see our reasoning. I don't see any reasoning in there, just some random claims without explanations. The document seriously lacks explanatinos on why the discussed licenses don't comply with the issues mentioned. > >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. > > Thank you. > > >It's very simple: use PDL, so that content can be exchanged. > > No, it's not that simple. The PDL prevets content from being reused in > the largest pools of existing content (GPL and Creative Commons) GPL for documentation doesn't make sense. It is a license for software. Creative Commons is not very widespread either. Furthermore: How useful is OOo-centric documentation for other people's documentation? How useful is a part of an OOo-centric documentation without the surroundings, without the relation to OOo? It it is useful, what prevents the author of generating a PDL-based derivate? > it > prevents distribution by Debian (the largest Linux distro), Why should it? This is one of the random, not clarified points. PDL allows unlimited redistribution, it allows modifications under the same terms as the original pice. It doesn't discriminate. It doesn't require the original "source" to stay intact. It doesn't "infect" other works. So why should it prevent distribution with Debian? > it requires > a lot of heavy work which made it hard for us to write and review > chapters at the speed we wanted (if each chapter gets reviewed 6 times > and we have 88 chapters so far, that's a lot of tracking to do) and we > were worried that we might not be using the license correctly (how > detailed should be tracking be?). Another claim. What is the heavy work? Writing something like "added chapter about XY", "fixed typos", "reworded XY"? Furthermore: Nowhere is stated that the license has to be applied during creation of the work. If you want you can create the work with whatever license and then publish it under the PDL as "Original Documentation". (or course this requires prior agreement of the authors involved) ciao Christian -- NP: The Smashing Pumpkins - We Only Come Out At Night --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
