Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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 here, as they are focusing on performance arts and collect money
on behalf of artists. We are speaking about documents here, which are free
in any case (and whose rights are not given to the collection company in
order to collect money).

The problem is to allow or to forbid a commercial entity to leverage
volunteer's work to produce a proprietary product (with a proprietary
documentation). CC does not allow this kind of use, while AL allows this
kind of use.

OOAuthors is an organization that is independent of both _The Document
Founation_ and _The Apache Foundation_. As such, rulings by either
organization are technically meaningless.

I started my message telling that it was a personal opinion, and it was
not meant to rule anything. On the other hand, I think that TDF has the
right to choose the license of LibreOffice documentation used or linked on
TDF/LibreOffice website.

The issue is that there is nothing in non-legalese that explains the
consequences of using the different licenses, for documentation, in any
legal jurisdiction.

Unfortunately not, although the Creative Commons website contains an
extensive documentation on each license and a non legal explanation.
Software licenses tend to use a strict legalese, which is bad.

I'd suggest that there be a document that clearly explains the legal
consequences, in plain English, on using:

* CC-BY-SA by itself;
* AL by itself;
* CC-BY-SA and AL;
* LGPL by itself;

I think it is simply impossible, as there are lawyers who support copyleft
and other lawyers who support permissive licenses (and would make the
other license look just silly). Basically, the risk of a copyleft license
is that the license is not honored, while the risk of permissive licenses
- which is a plus for AL advocates - is that a company picks up your work
and makes money out of it (which is not bad per se) without giving back to
the community (i.e. not allowing you, the original author, to make money).

Permissive licenses are not intrinsically bad, when we speak about server
side software (the environment they were created for). In this case, they
attract a number of developers because of their characteristics.

When used in a desktop (end user) environment, permissive licenses become
intrinsically bad (I would personally suggest to avoid the term permissive
in this specific instance). In addition, they only attract IBM (as of
today, history says this).

Italo Vignoli
Director - The Document Foundation
View this message in context:
Sent from the Documentation mailing list archive at

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.