--- On Mon, 9/5/11, Jean Weber <jeanwe...@gmail.com> wrote: ...
> > We have established that relicensing the existing OOo user > guides (which are licensed CC-BY) to the Apache license > is not practical. > Does this mean, as Rob has suggested, that these guides > *cannot* be part of the "official" documentation for AOOo > or only *should not* be part of that doco? > Please excuse my ignorance ... If I understand well: Despite owning the domain and the servers, the official documentation is not owned by Sun/Oracle (otherwise it could be relicensed). The problem has some similarities with situation in the forums. It's a transition process.. we have to live with the ASF rules but there is a status quo that is doing fine and we don't want to disrupt them. I would think for now we can keep them running in the Wikimedia VM that was made for that but we will have to make some transition plan: contact the authors that can be contacted (no spiritism, please ;) ), and transfer the documentation that is "copyright clean" to the confluence wiki. cheers, Pedro. > I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs > have not > gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen > immediately. In the > short term (for the next release of the software), we are > most likely > to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user > guides, or no > user guides at all. > > What should I tell the small group that remains from the > ODFAuthors > team that has been working on the user guides? > > --Jean > >
