[libreoffice-documentation] Re: Base Guide copyright and contributors

[Jean Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com>]

Apologies for oversimplifying and technical inaccuracy. You are correct
about what constitutes publication.  However, my real point was and is that
the authors of a document (draft or published) can choose to change the
license on the document.

--Jean


On Sunday, November 27, 2011, Alexander Thurgood <alex.thurgood@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Le 25/11/11 21:25, Jean Weber a écrit :
>
>
> Hi Jean,
>
>> 1) The OOo version of the existing chapters has not been published,
>> and I understand that Dan Lewis is writing the LO version and OOo
>> version in parallel. Therefore IMO the copyright page does not need
>> the Acknowledgements section stating "This chapter is based upon..."
>> with the list of contributors to the OOo chapter; all of those
>> contributors should instead be listed in the Contributors section of
>> both books and the Acks section removed.
>>
>> 2) As this book is unpublished, IMO it is a "new" document and could
>> be licensed under Apache and CC-BY-SA as I suggested in a previous
>> note... as long as all contributors agree. I believe we can contact
>
>
> >From a copyright law standpoint, if the work can be downloaded, then it
> has already been made available to the public - which under copyright
> law is sufficient to be considered as "publishing" in some
> jurisdictions. It can not then become a "new" document simply because it
> has gone from public draft to "public final". Your understanding or
> interpretation of the word "published" as I appear to understand it
> seems to equate more to "documentation team approved release".
>
> For example, the public can already access and download Base related
> documentation here :
>
>
http://media.libreoffice.org/cmis/browser/English/Documentation/Base%20Guide/Draft
>
> The licenses of these documents, unless stated otherwise therein, are
> CC-BY-SA, in order to be in agreement with the terms of use of the TDF
> infrastructure.
>
> Note that I'm not against the approach, merely pointing out what I see
> as a flaw in the reasoning based on the underlying tenets of copyright
law.
>
> If the documentation project really wanted to keep this as "unpublished"
> (i.e. not made available to the public), then it would have to hide
> access to the drafts and proofed stages of the site under the
> media.libreoffice.org address, and have some kind of binding agreement
> for the contributors of the documentation agreement that would oblige
> them to recognise a work as being made available only when it attained
> the status "published". As you will probably appreciate, this would
> probably attract a fair deal of criticism, possibly be fairly complex to
> set in motion, and would probably deter many from participating (who
> would want to sign up to something like that, especially for something
> they do mainly in their spare time?)
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
documentation+help@global.libreoffice.org
> Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted