On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 14:24 +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > 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.
Creative commons is certainly the most widespread license for open documentation that I have come across. It was certainly the most logical to use for the INGOT web site. > 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? I think that could well be the best way out. If the copyright holder allows it, and I think that is not just Daniel, write a clause that says these documents can be used from the OOoAuthors web site under the current license but when moved to the OOo website the license for use is PDL. I did suggest that earlier but it seems to have got lost in all the other noise. If Daniel can get the OOoAuthors people to agree to it I think this solves the problem. Ok, there is a danger of different versions of the docs floating about but that is not that serious. Its not like different versions of the code floating about. > > 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"? I certainly would not want to have to do that with INGOTs documentation. I'm perfectly happy for anyone to use anything on the INGOT web site for most purposes but I don't want to have to keep track of every revision made to the handbook. Its sufficient for people to know the most up to date version. Tracking the document wouldn't serve any really useful purpose when its easy to just download the most up to date version. There is opportunity cost in any additional work. > 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) Agreed and precisely the point above. I guess the main possible sticking point is to agree with the copyright holders that they are OK with this. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
