Hi
On 2007-01-12, at 15:18 , Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi *,
cc Louis,
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 03:59:17PM -0300, Caio Tiago Oliveira wrote:
[...]
It is now stated in the copyright info for the wiki:
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/
OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>
LGPL is complete crap for Documentation. And I absolutely don't
know why
Louis modified the wiki page to add a stupid license there.
We have GNU Free Documentation License for this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License>
No. "We" have PDL for documentation.
and I agree it's more suitable than LGPL for documentation.
But I think the council should discuss this kind of thing, it's
outside
the scope of this project.
If the LGPL is authoritative license decision, then I'll remove all
the
stuff I added there.
I kind of expected this reaction. You will note that the claims on
the copyright page state that on the one hand the authors have
copyright and on the other that the license is LGPL. We can modify
the text so that it simply states, "Copyright complies with the OOo
license as stated in www.openoffice.org/license.html".
ciao
Christian
--
NP: L'Amort - Dish Water
Join #qa.OpenOffice.org on irc.freenode.net
Ciao
Louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
