n Tue, 7/2/12, Sigrid Carrera wrote:
>
> From: Sigrid Carrera
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
> To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
> Date: Tuesday, 7 February, 2012, 18:33
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 01:37:50 -0800 (PST)
era wrote:
From: Sigrid Carrera
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Tuesday, 7 February, 2012, 18:33
Hi,
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 01:37:50 -0800 (PST)
yecril71pl wrote:
>
> Jean Weber wrote
> >
> >
Hi,
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 01:37:50 -0800 (PST)
yecril71pl wrote:
>
> 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
> > licens
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).
>
Note that GPL applied to documentation is void, so it may as well be
remov
toki.kantoor wrote
>
>
>> Look at the difference of opinion expressed by the Creative Commons
>> Foundation, MIT, and the Dutch Collection Society on what that license
>> means, grants, permits, and prohibits.
>
> I do not think that "national collection" companies represent a good
> example he
ing to look-up and understand the issues (imo)? (lol)
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Wed, 30/11/11, toki wrote:
From: toki
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Wednesday, 30 November, 2011, 16:06
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED ME
cumentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Wednesday, 30 November, 2011, 16:06
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/11/11 22:30, italovignoli wrote:
> - before deciding to use CC BY-NC-SA for all my licensed documents (mostly
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/11/11 22:30, italovignoli wrote:
> - before deciding to use CC BY-NC-SA for all my licensed documents (mostly
> presentations).
Most of the lawsuits involving CC Licenses have involved the meaning of
the CC-BY-NC-SA license.
Look at the diffe
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 license. [snip]
>
I have gone though the entire thread, and I have both a couple of things t
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote
>
>
> I am confident that an organization that avoids collecting CLAs of any
> flavor and accepts licenses to code via e-mail declarations is not getting
> any copyrights from anyone [;<).
>
>
Non sequitur. The form used to collect such declaration is irrelevant to th
Tom wrote
>
> In our case the copyright holder is TDF.
>
No, The copyright is with the respective authors.
I'd be reluctant to use AL2 for the same reason I would not use it for code.
It is a license whose only feature is to allow selfish entity to siphon the
community works without contribut
nwe...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 00:33
> To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 18:20, Jay Lozier wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like it is best to stick with a Creative Com
]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 03:46
>> To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
>>
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> Am Sonntag, 27. November 2011, 09:33:06 schrieb Jean Weber:
>> [ ...
Hi,
Am Sonntag, 27. November 2011, 22:18:33 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> Reassignment is different than adding a license or providing the material
> under an additional/different license.
>
> Reassignment is about copyright. Let's not go there.
that would something that would not work in some
that will be looked for
> and honored.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Mantke [mailto:ma...@gmx.de]
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 03:46
> To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
>
> Hi
1 00:33
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 18:20, Jay Lozier wrote:
>
> Sounds like it is best to stick with a Creative Commons license only for LO
> with the author(s) having the rights to re
mx.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 03:46
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
Hi Jean,
Am Sonntag, 27. November 2011, 09:33:06 schrieb Jean Weber:
[ ... ]
> I'll reiterate my comment in another note that if
Hi Jean,
Am Sonntag, 27. November 2011, 09:33:06 schrieb Jean Weber:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 18:20, Jay Lozier wrote:
> > Sounds like it is best to stick with a Creative Commons license only for
> > LO with the author(s) having the rights to reassign to others as they
> > wish. The problem with
Hi :)
Do. Please ignore my lengthy previous email!
Apols and regards from
Tom :)
--- On Sun, 27/11/11, Alex Thurgood wrote:
> From: Alex Thurgood
> Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
> To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
> Date: Sunday,
Hi :)
I think Alex's objections have been cleared away by Dennis's clarifications
so i suspect that Alex might well be willing to contribute under
dual-licensing. As i understand it the objection was something to do with
individuals having to sign an agreement with Apache but Dennis said that
wou
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 18:20, Jay Lozier wrote:
>
> Sounds like it is best to stick with a Creative Commons license only for LO
> with the author(s) having the rights to reassign to others as they wish. The
> problem with reassignment, if I understand copyrights, is that all the
> holders must ag
etc., etc.)
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 18:25
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: RE: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
I'm not quite clear what Alex is observing a
Le 27/11/2011 00:53, Jean Weber a écrit :
Hi all,
Yes, though other contributors have some rights. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details
of precisely what the rights of the other contributors are. I've always
considered that all are equal shareholders, so to speak, but technically it's
more compli
Le 27/11/2011 03:25, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
Hi Dennis,
Thank you for your comprehensive answer, it certainly clears up a few
things for me, even though I'm sticking to my original position of not
wishing to dual-license any new work I might produce within the
framework of the LibreOffic
. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 18:25
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: RE: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
I'm not quite clear what Alex is observing about rebranding of the New
documents Jean is talkin
From: Alex Thurgood [mailto:alex.thurg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 14:35
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
Le 26/11/2011 20:15, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
Hi Dennis,
> There is absolutely no r
Le 26/11/2011 20:15, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
Hi Dennis,
There is absolutely no requirement to file an iCLA with the Apache Software
Foundation in order to use the Apache License v2.0. The iCLA is for
contributors to Apache projects. It says so right in the part quoted below.
Many p
Given that I'm proposing a change to put new docs into the license preferred by
LO, I don't see the point in taking up the Board's time. I think Tom covered
this well in his note. But I see you have already contacted them...
--Jean
On Sunday, November 27, 2011, David Nelson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gi
breoffice.org
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
Hi :)
Ahh, i thought that when the team publishes a document the individuals CC by
SA licence is then re-licensed under a new CC by SA licence as the original
licence allows?
Also, "Hey that's not my
ks of any origin. Such cases have arisen.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Thurgood [mailto:alex.thurg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 07:41
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
Le 26/
oo.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 06:50
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
Hi :)
Ok, the human-readable explanation claims that individuals within an external
organisation would have to each sign their own individu
ependent projects that I'm licensing under ALv2 are not contributions to
any Apache project.)
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Thurgood [mailto:alex.thurg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 06:17
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: [libreoffice-d
Zaphod :) ) I might have missed a few ! marks.
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Sat, 26/11/11, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> From: Alexander Thurgood
> Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
> To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
> Date: Saturday, 26 Novem
Le 26/11/11 15:50, Tom Davies a écrit :
Hi Tom,
>
> In our case the copyright holder is TDF. Well at the moment not TDF but the
> German community (or is it French?) that is the legally registered
> organisation that is looking after TDF assets until TDF is fully registered.
>
Unfortunatel
does have some expertise in exactly the right area although he is not
officially employed as an expert and is only giving us the benefit of his
opinion for us to weigh-up.
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Sat, 26/11/11, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
From: Alexander Thurgood
Subject: [libreoffice-docume
e documentation team that is the
contributor?
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Sat, 26/11/11, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
From: Alexander Thurgood
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Saturday, 26 November, 2011, 14:16
Le
Le 25/11/11 20:01, Jean Weber a écrit :
Hi Jean,
> 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
37 matches
Mail list logo
