Hi Dennis,
Hi all,
2015-03-11 17:53 GMT+01:00 Dennis E. Hamilton :
> Is it correct to assume that we are speaking of documentation
+1
> and, specifically, material for the OpenOffice.org wiki and web site?
>
-1
>
> If the idea is to maintain the core material on only one place, you need
> to
--
From: Guy Waterval [mailto:waterval@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 04:41
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Hi Michael,
Hi all,
2015-03-11 12:14 GMT+01:00 RA Stehmann :
[...]
But: if a user creates a derived work and puts it un
> contributions, currently under ALv2.0, a double licence (ALv2.0 and
> CC-BY-SA 3.0) to make my contributions regarding OpenOffice (currently docs
> only) available for the 2 projects.
>
We do not have a problem with double licensing, actually it is in use for
quite a number of places.
The pr
Hi Michael,
Hi all,
2015-03-11 12:14 GMT+01:00 RA Stehmann :
[...]
But: if a user creates a derived work and puts it unter CC-BY_SA only,
> Apache can't use the derived work.
>
> ("Use" includes also "improve" and "share".)
>
> So the problem is the use of improvements.
>
This is the problem I
have more time and I plan to join another project. As this project uses
> a
> >> different licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0), I would use for my original
> >> contributions, currently under ALv2.0, a double licence (ALv2.0 and
> >> CC-BY-SA 3.0) to make my contributions regardi
rent licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0), I would use for my original
>> contributions, currently under ALv2.0, a double licence (ALv2.0 and
>> CC-BY-SA 3.0) to make my contributions regarding OpenOffice (currently docs
>> only) available for the 2 projects.
>>
> We do not have a pro
Hi all,
As it seems that I will be retired in advance (4 years) in July, I will
have more time and I plan to join another project. As this project uses a
different licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0), I would use for my original
contributions, currently under ALv2.0, a double licence (ALv2.0 and
CC-BY-SA 3.0
