On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 18:20, Jay Lozier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds like it is best to stick with a Creative Commons license only for LO > with the author(s) having the rights to reassign to others as they wish. The > problem with reassignment, if I understand copyrights, is that all the > holders must agree or it not valid.
I disagree. Dennis has covered well in various notes the situation with including the Apache license in a dual license arrangement. It is IMO very much an advantage, not a problem, and avoids exactly the situation you mention (of perhaps wanting to relicense in future). Of course, it potentially means that some people (eg Alex) may choose not to contribute to documents licensed in this way. But I suspect that most contributors don't and won't care, and of those who do care, most will be happy with the dual license. Indeed, I suspect that most contributors to the docs produced by ODFAuthors and the docs being created here at LO have never paid any attention to the licensing of those docs. I'll reiterate my comment in another note that if someone (you, for example) were to write a new document from scratch and wanted to license it only under CC-BY-SA, then they can certainly do so. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
