If, as Keith proposes, the work is conducted at the ODFAUthors site and the ODFAuthors licensing is retained, the question then becomes simply whether redistribution on a site in ASF custody is appropriate.
That seems simplest and appropriate. Even if there is a concern about the dual-license affixed to the material, it can always be referenced in a location on the ODFAUthors site. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: TJ Frazier [mailto:tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 13:17 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO On 9/16/2012 14:04, Keith N. McKenna wrote: [ ... ] Hi, Keith, As a long-time volunteer with ODFA (formerly OOA), I can promise that we (AOO) can get documents from them. The cost of this option is (1) a legal review and approval of CC-BY v3; (2) some storage (WG v3.2 is 15.5 MB, so call it 100 or 200 MB per version, probably as .odt and .pdf files on the Mwiki. The download volume/bandwidth has been too low to cause any problems, but I have no stats); and (3) a little politeness. If someone will handle Point (1), so that we have our ducks in a row, I will volunteer to handle Point (3). I can check on Point (2), but I don't think it's a problem. /tj/ > > I will look forward to your edits on the wiki and the doc site. > > As an aside, is there a developer snapshot available or 3.5 yet? I would > like to start work on the Getting Started Guide on the ODFAuthors site > and it makes sense to make edits based on 3.5 since that will be the > most likely next release. > > Regards > Keith > > >
