Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Who will use GPL for documentation?
Some people do. Perhaps this is not the best time to elaborate. Given
that some of the posts lately have been a little heated.
I don't see any reasoning in there, just some random claims without
explanations.
I tried to make the document succinct. I did not claim to provide
explanations in the document. I would be happy to discuss these later,
when things cool down a bit. I can add explanations, surely. In the mean
time, there is the option of reading the discussions on the list
archives. But you don't have to do that. I will be happy to discuss this
later, when people cool down a bit.
GPL for documentation doesn't make sense. It is a license for software.
Creative Commons is not very widespread either.
Creative Commons is very widespread I think. It's used by Gentoo and
Mozilla for example. The GPL thing has a lot to do with Debian. Since
the other licenses didn't fit the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The
best people to discuss the why of the GPL for documentation is the
debian-legal mailing list. The discussion there was very long and
exhaustive. I wouldn't look forward to repeating it.
Furthermore: How useful is OOo-centric documentation for other people's
documentation?
If Debian decided to distribute the document, that would be useful.
it prevents distribution by Debian (the largest Linux distro),
Why should it? This is one of the random, not clarified points.
Because the PDL is not a free license according to the Debian Free
Software Guidelines. It fails some of their tests. This is something
that the debian-legal mailing list can explain infinitely better than I.
So why should it prevent distribution with Debian?
Don't quote me on this, but I *think* it failed the "isolated island"
test, and perhaps one more.
Another claim. What is the heavy work? Writing something like "added
chapter about XY", "fixed typos", "reworded XY"?
Is that enough detail for the purpose of the license? I don't know.Do
you have to list every single change including page number, original
text and the new one? That would be excessive. At the other extreme, can
you get away with "reviewed the chapter and made edits"? I don't know.
And the only way to find out is to get in legal trouble and have a judge
decide. Suppose you make 50 edits to a chapter (that's not very much).
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)
I like that idea. If that can work, it would be great. It's actually
similar to an idea Ian suggested. Let's see what Scott Carr says. Please
be a little patient. I will pursue this suggestion and try to make it work.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) Leave your mark at OpenOffice.org
/\/_/
/\/_/ OOoAuthors: http://oooauthors.org
\/_/ Knowledge Base: http://mindmeld.cybersite.com.au/
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
