On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Simon Cropper <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally I have a problem with Project Overviews, or any technical > documentation for that matter, being locked up in Commercial-in-Confidence > derivatives. I think Project Overviews, which can be legitimately be > included 'as is' in a proposal or design document, shouldn't need to be > reworked. To me the reworked document, which needs to include your name as > original author, implies some sort of collaboration has occurred when none > has occurred. Yes, reworked documents do look better but contribute nothing > the the broader CC/FOSS/OSGeo community. > > But this is my opinion. If you have one - for or against - *especially those > people that have authored the Project Overviews*, SPEAK UP! Project overviews are so small that even if a restrictive license would apply, you could still get away with copying it completely as sort of citation. We are talking about 2-3 sentences and a list of features, which -I guess- in many cases have been at least partly copied and/or inspired from/by other sources often not noting any license and therefore copyrighted - so if you are so strict about licensing I'm not even sure we can publish them ourselves. This whole discussion is imho ridiculous: those who don't care about licensing will copy from any source for their commercial proposals, those who do (but given the general rush in which project proposals usually are written I would doubt if there are many) might contact you and/or share their changes. Disclaimer: I learned talking and writing English by copying sentences from teachers, textbooks and other sources. I'm sorry if my sentences contain copyrighted material. _______________________________________________ Live-demo mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
