Permission for 3rd party documentation

Hi :slight_smile:
I thought i would forwards this from the Ubuntu Docs Mailing List.  Their objectives suggest they would be better off using LibreOffice due to it's rapid growth of LibreOffice on the 3 major platforms;  Windows, Gnu&Linux and Mac (and Bsd too of course). 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
Err, by "their objectives" i meant "Braintribe IT Technologies GmbH" not Ubuntu Docs.  Sorry.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Double edged sword. While I was using Fedora (because I wanted the latest), some of my friends were on Ubuntu because they wanted to find something that worked and then not change until they had to. Libre fixes bugs at a faster rate in releases, but they have also been introducing them at a faster rater.

Hi :slight_smile:
I think that is a different issue (but i'm not sure).  I think they are just asking permission to take screen-shots and perhaps use and modify the official documentation for some reason.

I guess they don't understand copy-left licenses or OpenSource ideals or maybe they are just being polite and asking permission for something that they are free to go ahead with anyway.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

I think they are just asking permission to take screen-shots

Microsoft has an official policy of claiming copyright of all
screenshots on a Microsoft platform.

I guess they don't understand copy-left licenses or OpenSource ideals

Most likely explanation is _Due Diligence_.

I've found thousands of documents that are allegedly distributed under a
copy-left license, but, upon verifying the status with the legal
copyright holder, discovered to be ARR. There are several sites on the
Internet that pay lip service to libre content,by implementing an
_OFFICIAL_ policy of re-licensing everything, _without_ the knowledge,
consent, or authorization of the legal copyright holder.

and asking permission for something that they are free to go ahead with

anyway.

If one could safely assume that the libre license was added by the
legitimate copyright holder, then your assumption --- that asking
permission is unnecessary, because it has been granted --- would be correct.

Since the well is known to be poisoned, you have to do as much, if not
more due diligence with libre content, than with non-libre content.

jonathon