Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Guy Waterval <waterval.guy@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:39:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMjW0BsUUG6iXojZHk8NoXW-cNkk_zAN7MgTT9jAv4kSXeRZOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Apache licence vs cc-by-sa
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d4a3200626c055219c8c3"
archived-at: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:39:32 -0000

--001a113d4a3200626c055219c8c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello all,

I have decided since for a while, to publish only under an Apache license
all the photos that I upload to Wikimedia Commons, because they are
destinated to an uni which will select those to integrate to its internal
photographic collection. For this reason, I wish delivery the material with
a maximum reusability, without any problem..
For instance, I want to avoid that if some of my images shoud be inserted
in a document (thesis or other works), they couldn't influence the
conditions of use of the created document. I want to allow the author of
the final document to choose whether to publish his document under a free
license or not. Of course the internal parts under ALV2.0 are to be
announced by a notice in the global document.
Others tell me that it's also possible to do that with internal parts
(texts or images) licenced under a cc-by-sa. But for me, a composite
document integrating parts (images or texts) under a cc-by-sa license has
to be licensed globally under cc-by-sa only, because this licence is not a
permissive one. To be OK, a cc-by and not a cc-by-sa should be used in this
case.

Thanks for your advices
gw

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Garanti
sans virus. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

--001a113d4a3200626c055219c8c3--