incubator-ooo-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From conflue...@apache.org
Subject [CONF] Apache OpenOffice Community > User Guides Revisted
Date Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:51:00 GMT
Space: Apache OpenOffice Community (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS)
Page: User Guides Revisted (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted)
Comment: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted?focusedCommentId=30736625#comment-30736625

Comment added by Kay Schenk:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

@Dennis, re: dual licensing

Yes, I figured that out after a bit, but have not reviewed the individual docs. We are primarily
concerned with the drafts of the 3.4 User Guide at the moment. 

This is what they say--

This document is Copyright © 2012 by its contributors as listed below. You may distribute
it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU General Public License, version 3 or
later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or the Creative Commons Attribution License,
version 3.0 or later (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

On your other statement re simply posting and not hosting. That is what I had thought as well,
but there is apparently some concern with this, that the docs would not be considered "official"
etc. I can not address this statement, really.

At this point, I am mostly playing the role of the interested by stander as I believe Keith
has the lead on this. 

In reply to a comment by Dennis E. Hamilton:
@Kay,

It is necessary to look at the documents themselves to see what the licenses are.

I think, because of the dual licensing, the preferable case would be to have the editable
forms of the documents (i.e., essentially the "source") retained on the ODFAuthors site (with
a contingency plan, such as SourceForge backups, in case that site is ever closed).

The PDFs could be posted on openoffice.org or elsewhere, since that is not "source code."
 In that case, it would be appropriate to ensure that the documents include links to where
they are found in their other forms on ODFAuthors.  That is a good idea anyway.  It is the
best way for folks to find out about older and newer versions, submit changes and improvements,
and contribute to the authoring of more.

There are print versions available via ODFAuthors at times, and any sales/royalties for those
go somewhere.  I suspect that is fine, especially if it helps the ODFAuthors site keep operating.

Change your notification preferences: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewnotifications.action

Mime
View raw message