On Wednesday 14 October 2009 16:45, Clayton wrote:
> Nino Novak wrote:
> > Finally, I'm trying to finish work but still need a little help.
> > Could you please be so kind and add a bot flag to user NninoBot.
>
> Done.
Great.
> If you need anything else, just let me know.
Up to now, everythi
Nino Novak wrote:
> Finally, I'm trying to finish work but still need a little help.
> Could you please be so kind and add a bot flag to user NninoBot.
Done. If you need anything else, just let me know.
C.
--
Clayton Cornell ccorn...@openoffice.org
OpenOffice.org Documentation Project co-
Finally, I'm trying to finish work but still need a little help.
Could you please be so kind and add a bot flag to user NninoBot.
Thanks.
Nino
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@documentation.openoffice.org
For additiona
Just out of curiousity, what happens regarding licensing of the wiki if
someone dies?
You would no longer be able to ask for permission to relicense.
Is there no way at all of clarifying all the licenses under one license?
It seems odd to me, because it seems that pe
( :
ok
Andreas Mantke wrote:
Hi Alan, *,
Am Donnerstag 01 Oktober 2009 10:24:09 schrieb Alan:
Let's simplify.
We want something with no ambiguities.
Move over everything under a new license.
One addendum. Anyone who doesn't agree with the new move and/or license
is free to withdraw the
Hi Alan, *,
Am Donnerstag 01 Oktober 2009 10:24:09 schrieb Alan:
> Let's simplify.
>
> We want something with no ambiguities.
>
> Move over everything under a new license.
>
> One addendum. Anyone who doesn't agree with the new move and/or license
> is free to withdraw their material.
>
> Prov
The only thing to do so far seems to put the right license Template on
every page. I'll try to do this in the next days.
That is how we're handling it on the Doc pages. Each page has a footer
(using a Template) that states what license the content is released
under... generally that would be
On Thursday 01 October 2009 11:03, ccornell - OpenOffice.org wrote:
> As I said, it's not so easy.
>
> Attempts have been made in the past to clarify things across the Wiki
> and bring all content under a known set of licenses. This has not
> worked for many reasons.
>
> Within the Documentation P
As I said, it's not so easy.
Attempts have been made in the past to clarify things across the Wiki
and bring all content under a known set of licenses. This has not
worked for many reasons.
Within the Documentation Project Wiki pages - the place *we* can
influence and control, we can and do
Let's simplify.
We want something with no ambiguities.
Move over everything under a new license.
One addendum. Anyone who doesn't agree with the new move and/or license
is free to withdraw their material.
Provide a deadline for withdrawing material. State this clearly.
If no one withdraws
Then I'd suggest to start over ASAP.
Putting things right IMHO is an important prerequisite for productive
work.
Easy to say, but very difficult (but not impossible) to do.
Starting over introduces a lot of issues... maintaining 2 valid/live
Wikis is an admin nightmare. If you lock the old
On Wednesday 30 September 2009 12:51, Clayton wrote:
> Licensing is a tough topic. In a perfect world all OOo Docs would be
> under a single license. Reality is though... they're not.
>
> The Wiki itself is also a minefield of mixed licensing. This is,
> unfortunately, a product of how the Wiki
I know there are solutions.
Anytime people at core want to work together, help each other and
contribute to a shared goal, there are solutions.
When humans have a true desire to work together and a shared vision of
the future
There is no red tape that can stop them.
Nothing will stand in t
Hi Clayton,
Clayton wrote:
Alan wrote:
(eg you can't make a blanket copyright statement for the Wiki
that affects and changes the license for existing content)
Why not?
You can if it's there from day one... but on the OOo Wiki.. it hasn't
been clearly stated from day one thus the ambiguit
User guides produced by OOoAuthors are dual-licensed: the GNU General
Public License, version 3 or later, and the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC-BY), version 3.0 or later. We determined that
translators and others could use it under the PDL as "original
documentation". What all that means
Alan wrote:
> (eg you can't make a blanket copyright statement for the Wiki
> that affects and changes the license for existing content)
>
> Why not?
You can if it's there from day one... but on the OOo Wiki.. it hasn't
been clearly stated from day one thus the ambiguity, and the pages
with c
(eg you can't make a blanket copyright statement for the Wiki
that affects and changes the license for existing content)
Why not?
There has to be a way people can get together and de-complicate things.
Why should licensing tie knots in people who want to work together and
have common desires?
Nino Novak wrote:
> In the Germanophone Community the concern has been raised that
> contributions to the localized User Guide Wiki pages can not be ported
> back to the OOoauthors ODT documents as the ODTs are multiple licensed
> (CC-BY as well as GPL and PDL) and the wiki pages - so far - are
In the Germanophone Community the concern has been raised that
contributions to the localized User Guide Wiki pages can not be ported
back to the OOoauthors ODT documents as the ODTs are multiple licensed
(CC-BY as well as GPL and PDL) and the wiki pages - so far - are
explicitly only under CC-
19 matches
Mail list logo
