On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 10:59 PM, C <smau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's not about court cases, it's about respecting the wishes and > expectations of people who did contribute under a specific license (or > no license).
Totally agree with Clayton about that. > > If we treat legacy documentation content that does not have any > explicit license as being under PDL (as much as we may not like PDL), > we should be within reason of the original expectations of the > original authors. This is compatible with the license statements on > the AOO Wiki today. > > If the PDL is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA licenses in use for > LibreOffice, then maybe instead of direct copy/paste, use the content > as a starting point... rewrite and update the content to make it > relevant to LibreOffice. Does this idea still respect the original > author's intentions as well as the expectations of anyone who > contributed to the FAQs since they were added to the Wiki? I don't know whether PDL is compatiable with CC-BY-SA. Whether it is or not, I think Clayton's suggestion is best: instead of directly copying the content on the AOO wiki, use it as a starting point and rewrite and update it as needed for LO. That also has the advantage of forcing us to review the material to make sure it's up to date for LO. --Jean -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: documentation+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org 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
