Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Liberal licensing of Project Overviews in LiveDVD, do we want this?
On 06/30/2011 02:29 AM, Simon Cropper wrote: Hi Guys, Cameron has just posted the new licensing details for the LiveDVD. I presume if you actually opened my post that you may be concerned with how Project Overviews may be used. If you have any opinions on this matter PLEASE speak up -- don't just sit in the background as *Cameron will take the lack of any responses as an implicit YES to his proposal*. 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! Hi Simon, what you describe are implications of Open Source. Why is it an issue for documentation but not for source code? Cheers, Volker ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Liberal licensing of Project Overviews in LiveDVD, do we want this?
Hi Guys, Cameron has just posted the new licensing details for the LiveDVD. I presume if you actually opened my post that you may be concerned with how Project Overviews may be used. If you have any opinions on this matter PLEASE speak up -- don't just sit in the background as *Cameron will take the lack of any responses as an implicit YES to his proposal*. 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! -- Cheers Simon Simon Cropper Principal Consultant Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd PO Box 160, Sunshine, VIC W: www.botanicusaustralia.com.au ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
