Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The PDL is very inconvenient to use.
>
> And it doesn't appear to be a free license.
I certainly think it is less free that CC-BY. So I think that moving
towards CC-BY is a movement towards more free. Notice that many of my
reasons for wanting to switch come down to wanting to do something that
I'm not currently permitted.
> > For this reason, also, the usual suggestions won't help us.
>
> That doesn't make any sense. Why are you limited to this ridiculous
> pair of licenses?
Because OpenOffice.org is very slow at approving anything. Getting
anything changed is difficult and takes time. Before, the only license
allowed for documentation was the PDL. Recently, we approved the CC-BY. I
think that the CC-BY is better than the PDL, so I want to take it.
This doesn't preclude the probability of there ever being another license.
I expect there will be. But that will not be for a long time.
I am hoping that the Debian concerns with the CC-BY can be addressed with
a clarification letter. If it can't, then I'll just accept that the the
work can only go in the non-free archive until the CC changes the license.
This would be sad, but not catastrophic. After all, this isn't Debian
documentation we're talking about. But I will still go for the CC-BY
because I think it is a step in the right direction.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
Reply to: