Oops, I sent this to a wrong address. Trying again. --Jean
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:00, Jean Weber wrote:
> On the documentation list, I proposed changing the license for NEW
> docs from the legacy licensing (carried over from the OOo user guides
> that were revised for LO) to a different licen
On the documentation list, I proposed changing the license for NEW
docs from the legacy licensing (carried over from the OOo user guides
that were revised for LO) to a different license. The proposal has
generated quite a bit of discussion. David Nelson suggested that we
should involve the Board in
Hi,
David Nelson wrote on 2011-11-26 18:13:
Given that we're talking about such a fundamental thing as a change of
license in new LibreOffice documentation, I still reckon it would be
natural to involve the BoD in discussing the idea...
indeed. ;-) Can you maybe post to board-discuss?
Florian
On 27/11/2011, at 8:04, Dan Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 06:37 +1000, Jean Weber wrote:
>> Dennis, thank you for the extremely relevant discussions about copyright
>> and licensing, including:
>>
>>> There is absolutely no requirement to file an iCLA with the Apache
>> Software Foundatio
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 06:37 +1000, Jean Weber wrote:
> Dennis, thank you for the extremely relevant discussions about copyright
> and licensing, including:
>
> > There is absolutely no requirement to file an iCLA with the Apache
> Software Foundation in order to use the Apache License v2.0...
> >
Dennis, thank you for the extremely relevant discussions about copyright
and licensing, including:
> There is absolutely no requirement to file an iCLA with the Apache
Software Foundation in order to use the Apache License v2.0...
>
> The license itself suggests all that is needed to apply it to y
Hi,
Given that we're talking about such a fundamental thing as a change of
license in new LibreOffice documentation, I still reckon it would be
natural to involve the BoD in discussing the idea...
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Licensing-for-NEW-documents-tp3536793p3536793.html
--
David N
e doing what we have already agreed on.
Just my 2cents
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Sat, 26/11/11, Jean Weber wrote:
From: Jean Weber
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Licensing for NEW documents
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Saturday, 26 November, 2011, 12:28
On Sat, Nov 26,
Hi Jean,
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Jean Weber wrote:
> Efficiency
> be damned. These days I'm only doing stuff I want to do, which
> includes tossing out ideas as they occur to me.
Perfectly understandable. :-D
--
David Nelson
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 22:10, David Nelson wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jean Weber wrote:
>> Sure, go ahead. --Jean
>
> So did you actually make the changes to the template as such? Since
> it's your idea to change the licensing, do you think it would be more
> efficien
Hi Jean,
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jean Weber wrote:
> Sure, go ahead. --Jean
So did you actually make the changes to the template as such? Since
it's your idea to change the licensing, do you think it would be more
efficient if *you* contacted the BoD? ;-)
--
David Nelson
--
Unsubscr
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 21:54, David Nelson wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Jean Weber wrote:
>> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were
>> derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the
>> Copyright page (GPL
Hi Jean,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Jean Weber wrote:
> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were
> derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the
> Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could b
On 11/25/2011 02:01 PM, Jean Weber wrote:
The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were
derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the
Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I p
ful to our Apaches buddies. The change would
> allow people to modify and redistribute wouldn't it?
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>
> --- On Fri, 25/11/11, Jean Weber wrote:
>
> From: Jean Weber
> Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Licensing for NEW documents
> To:
;t it?
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Fri, 25/11/11, Jean Weber wrote:
From: Jean Weber
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Licensing for NEW documents
To: "documentation@global.libreoffice.org"
Date: Friday, 25 November, 2011, 19:01
The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo g
The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were
derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the
Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs
be dual licensed CC-BY
17 matches
Mail list logo
