toki.kantoor wrote > > >> Look at the difference of opinion expressed by the Creative Commons >> Foundation, MIT, and the Dutch Collection Society on what that license >> means, grants, permits, and prohibits. > > I do not think that "national collection" companies represent a good > example here, as they are focusing on performance arts and collect money > on behalf of artists. We are speaking about documents here, which are free > in any case (and whose rights are not given to the collection company in > order to collect money). > > The problem is to allow or to forbid a commercial entity to leverage > volunteer's work to produce a proprietary product (with a proprietary > documentation). CC does not allow this kind of use, while AL allows this > kind of use. > >> OOAuthors is an organization that is independent of both _The Document >> Founation_ and _The Apache Foundation_. As such, rulings by either >> organization are technically meaningless. > > I started my message telling that it was a personal opinion, and it was > not meant to rule anything. On the other hand, I think that TDF has the > right to choose the license of LibreOffice documentation used or linked on > TDF/LibreOffice website. > >> The issue is that there is nothing in non-legalese that explains the >> consequences of using the different licenses, for documentation, in any >> legal jurisdiction. > > Unfortunately not, although the Creative Commons website contains an > extensive documentation on each license and a non legal explanation. > Software licenses tend to use a strict legalese, which is bad. > >> I'd suggest that there be a document that clearly explains the legal >> consequences, in plain English, on using: > >> * CC-BY-SA by itself; >> * AL by itself; >> * CC-BY-SA and AL; >> * LGPL by itself; > > I think it is simply impossible, as there are lawyers who support copyleft > and other lawyers who support permissive licenses (and would make the > other license look just silly). Basically, the risk of a copyleft license > is that the license is not honored, while the risk of permissive licenses > - which is a plus for AL advocates - is that a company picks up your work > and makes money out of it (which is not bad per se) without giving back to > the community (i.e. not allowing you, the original author, to make money). > > Permissive licenses are not intrinsically bad, when we speak about server > side software (the environment they were created for). In this case, they > attract a number of developers because of their characteristics. > > When used in a desktop (end user) environment, permissive licenses become > intrinsically bad (I would personally suggest to avoid the term permissive > in this specific instance). In addition, they only attract IBM (as of > today, history says this). > >
----- Italo Vignoli Director - The Document Foundation -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Licensing-for-NEW-documents-tp3536793p3549111.html Sent from the Documentation mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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
