Documentation wiki: license requirement?

[Jean Hollis Weber-3]

I've been looking at the OOo wiki, in particular
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Category:Documentation

I cannot find what license conditions are imposed on
contributions to the wiki. The OOo licenses page doesn't say
anything specifically about the wiki, so I'm unclear whether the
same licenses apply there.

In particular, I have material copyright under the Creative
Commons Attribution License that could be contributed to the
wiki, but the Licenses page says OOo only accepts work under that
license if it is non-editable and clearly anything on a wiki is
editable.

Scott or Frank or someone, can you help me out here? Thanks!

Regards, Jean

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[G. Roderick Singleton-2]

On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 20:12 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

> I've been looking at the OOo wiki, in particular
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Category:Documentation
>
> I cannot find what license conditions are imposed on
> contributions to the wiki. The OOo licenses page doesn't say
> anything specifically about the wiki, so I'm unclear whether the
> same licenses apply there.
>
> In particular, I have material copyright under the Creative
> Commons Attribution License that could be contributed to the
> wiki, but the Licenses page says OOo only accepts work under that
> license if it is non-editable and clearly anything on a wiki is
> editable.
>
> Scott or Frank or someone, can you help me out here? Thanks!
>

Please see http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html
I think this will answer your question. BTW, why would you think that
licensing would be different for the wiki? For the help stuff you still
need to have signed the JCA. Helps with the docs too.

--
PLEASE KEEP MESSAGES ON THE LIST.
OpenOffice.org Documentation Co-Lead
http://documentation.openoffice.org/ 

[Jean Hollis Weber-3]

G. Roderick Singleton wrote:

> BTW, why would you think that
> licensing would be different for the wiki?

I didn't really think it would be different. I was, however,
*hoping* that it would be different. Oh well.

--Jean

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[G. Roderick Singleton-2]

On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 06:31 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
>
> > BTW, why would you think that
> > licensing would be different for the wiki?
>
> I didn't really think it would be different. I was, however,
> *hoping* that it would be different. Oh well.

Yes, one of the penalties we pay :-(
--
G. Roderick Singleton <grsingleton@...>
OpenOffice.org

[Andre Schnabel]

Hi,

G. Roderick Singleton schrieb:
> Please see http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html
> I think this will answer your question.

No -this does not answer any question. The wiki has been established
without any licensing restrictions.  Louis added refernce to LGPL and
the OOo site licensing FAQ months after contributons had been done.  See
issue 73421
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73421


> BTW, why would you think that
> licensing would be different for the wiki?

Because it is an external site and had no licensing restrictions when it
started.

Don't get me wrong - I'd leike to see all our documentations under
licenses that are compatible. So the licensing terms for OOo source and
documentations need to be considered. But there should be a place to
collect materials that do not (perfectly) fit to our licenses. If we do
not have such a place, these materials will be lost.

André

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[G. Roderick Singleton-2]

On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:15 +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> G. Roderick Singleton schrieb:
> > Please see http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html
> > I think this will answer your question.
>
> No -this does not answer any question. The wiki has been established
> without any licensing restrictions.  Louis added refernce to LGPL and
> the OOo site licensing FAQ months after contributons had been done.  See
> issue 73421
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73421
>
>
> > BTW, why would you think that
> > licensing would be different for the wiki?
>
> Because it is an external site and had no licensing restrictions when it
> started.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'd leike to see all our documentations under
> licenses that are compatible. So the licensing terms for OOo source and
> documentations need to be considered. But there should be a place to
> collect materials that do not (perfectly) fit to our licenses. If we do
> not have such a place, these materials will be lost.
>

Fine. I guess the wiki is just a techie amusement then for those that
cannot abide by the project requirements.

The documentation project is obliged to honour the licenses as I pointed
out; so anything on the wiki cannot be integrated into the project
without a lot of hassle. This is sad but ...

--
G. Roderick Singleton <grsingleton@...>
OpenOffice.org

[G. Roderick Singleton-2]

On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:15 +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> G. Roderick Singleton schrieb:
> > Please see http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html
> > I think this will answer your question.
>
> No -this does not answer any question. The wiki has been established
> without any licensing restrictions.  Louis added refernce to LGPL and
> the OOo site licensing FAQ months after contributons had been done.  See
> issue 73421
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73421
>
>
> > BTW, why would you think that
> > licensing would be different for the wiki?
>
> Because it is an external site and had no licensing restrictions when it
> started.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'd leike to see all our documentations under
> licenses that are compatible. So the licensing terms for OOo source and
> documentations need to be considered. But there should be a place to
> collect materials that do not (perfectly) fit to our licenses. If we do
> not have such a place, these materials will be lost.
>
> André

Further, as a member of the CC I recommend that you implement the
changes necessary so that the documentation project can use material
generated on the wiki. In the meantime, we are stuck with the current
set of imposed restrictions.
--
G. Roderick Singleton <grsingleton@...>
OpenOffice.org

[Andre Schnabel]

Hi,


G. Roderick Singleton schrieb:
> Further, as a member of the CC I recommend that you implement the
> changes necessary so that the documentation project can use material
> generated on the wiki.

I cannot heal things that have been missed whe the wiki started. So I
cannot apply any licensing terms to stuff that is already on the wiki.
If I did it was simply illegal.

> In the meantime, we are stuck with the current
> set of imposed restrictions.
>  

No - if there is something put to the wiki, authors should write a
licensing notice.

Take Jean's example: there is a documentation available under Creative
Commons license. This might be put to the wiki with a disclaimer that it
is under Creative Commons. Unfortunately it cannot be mixed with stuff
here at the documentation project, as we now, that our documetnations
are under PDL.
This is a sad situation - but woul it help to establish yet another
restriction?

What would happen if we allow PDL-only documentations at the wiki?
Simple as that: Jean's material would not be published at the wiki but
somwhere far away from the OOo site.

What would happen if we allow Creative Commons at the ooo website? Would
it help to mix current docs with CC documentation? No it wouldn't, as no
matter what our rules say the licenses are not compatible.

Btw. Louis attempt was to put all wiki content under LGPL - this would
have been even worse for documentation (PDL and LGPL dont fit very
well). But this was only by request of Nakata Maho who considers all his
contributions at the wiki to be LGPL.

André

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[G. Roderick Singleton-2]

On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 17:12 +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> G. Roderick Singleton schrieb:
> > Further, as a member of the CC I recommend that you implement the
> > changes necessary so that the documentation project can use material
> > generated on the wiki.
>
> I cannot heal things that have been missed whe the wiki started. So I
> cannot apply any licensing terms to stuff that is already on the wiki.
> If I did it was simply illegal.
>
> > In the meantime, we are stuck with the current
> > set of imposed restrictions.
> >  
>
> No - if there is something put to the wiki, authors should write a
> licensing notice.
>
> Take Jean's example: there is a documentation available under Creative
> Commons license. This might be put to the wiki with a disclaimer that it
> is under Creative Commons. Unfortunately it cannot be mixed with stuff
> here at the documentation project, as we now, that our documetnations
> are under PDL.
> This is a sad situation - but woul it help to establish yet another
> restriction?
>
> What would happen if we allow PDL-only documentations at the wiki?
> Simple as that: Jean's material would not be published at the wiki but
> somwhere far away from the OOo site.
>
> What would happen if we allow Creative Commons at the ooo website? Would
> it help to mix current docs with CC documentation? No it wouldn't, as no
> matter what our rules say the licenses are not compatible.
>
> Btw. Louis attempt was to put all wiki content under LGPL - this would
> have been even worse for documentation (PDL and LGPL dont fit very
> well). But this was only by request of Nakata Maho who considers all his
> contributions at the wiki to be LGPL.
>

You seemed to have missed the point. What goes on the wiki is fine by
me. However, as I pointed out, the only editable stuff permitted on the
documentation project must follow the licensing set down by the CC. We
have managed to extend things to include non-editable files under other
licenses but only after much hassle. Thus, in the end, anything on the
wiki tends to be useless. So I ask again, please change the rules.
--
G. Roderick Singleton <grsingleton@...>
OpenOffice.org

[Andre Schnabel]

Hi,

G. Roderick Singleton schrieb:
>
>
> You seemed to have missed the point.
Ok, but I beg your pardon. As I'm not a native english speaker could you
make clear, what the point is? (Ok, I guess I know)


> What goes on the wiki is fine by
> me. However, as I pointed out, the only editable stuff permitted on the
> documentation project must follow the licensing set down by the CC. We
> have managed to extend things to include non-editable files under other
> licenses but only after much hassle. Thus, in the end, anything on the
> wiki tends to be useless. So I ask again, please change the rules.
>  
Please tell exactly, what rules you like to have changed - and if you
like to have the CC vote on a change, please send a mail to agenda@council.
Please add some words *why* you like to change the rules. And why you
consider the stuff att the wiki as useless. And - how a change of rules
would change that?


André

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

>> You seemed to have missed the point.
> Ok, but I beg your pardon. As I'm not a native english speaker could you
> make clear, what the point is? (Ok, I guess I know)
>
>
>> What goes on the wiki is fine by
>> me. However, as I pointed out, the only editable stuff permitted on the
>> documentation project must follow the licensing set down by the CC. We
>> have managed to extend things to include non-editable files under other
>> licenses but only after much hassle. Thus, in the end, anything on the
>> wiki tends to be useless. So I ask again, please change the rules.
>>  
> Please tell exactly, what rules you like to have changed - and if you
> like to have the CC vote on a change, please send a mail to agenda@council.
> Please add some words *why* you like to change the rules. And why you
> consider the stuff att the wiki as useless. And - how a change of rules
> would change that?

Interesting discussion, and necessary, too. We need to look
at how we can make the wiki usable for documentation purposes
either by changing the licensing of the wiki or the docs.

Using wiki makes it so much easier to collaborate, particularly for
non-techie authors that it would be a wasted opportunity if we
would not make use of it.

The Sun docs group is currently evaluating how we can get dev
docs onto the ooo wiki, but we're focussing on the technical
side, not the legal side. I'll send a separate posting next week
with some updates and details.

I would like to learn about compatibilities and incompatibilities
of the two channels (doc.oo.o and ooowiki). If the legal status
of the wiki is undefined this should be changed. If docs licensing
is incompatible to wiki licensing this should be changed, too.
I'm gonna take a closer look at the licenses and ask around
to get a better idea what is possible and what is not.

We're shooting ourselves in the foot if we're unable to
set up a consistent licensing story.

Frank


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Andre Schnabel]

Hi Frank, *


Frank Peters schrieb:
>
> Interesting discussion, and necessary, too. We need to look
> at how we can make the wiki usable for documentation purposes
> either by changing the licensing of the wiki or the docs.

I see no reason to change the licensing at the wiki, as there is no
explicit license.

If you like to use the wiki as tool for starting with documents (as
editing and changing is more easy there) simply put a licensing notice
to the relevant page. But you should do this when you create the page.  
Changing a license after several people have contributed is a leghal
problem, as you need to ask all contributors if they agree to the
license change.

>
>
> The Sun docs group is currently evaluating how we can get dev
> docs onto the ooo wiki, but we're focussing on the technical
> side, not the legal side. I'll send a separate posting next week
> with some updates and details.
>
> I would like to learn about compatibilities and incompatibilities
> of the two channels (doc.oo.o and ooowiki). If the legal status
> of the wiki is undefined this should be changed.

Why? The current status of the wiki is, that each contributor holds the
copyright of her contributions - and is free to put this under any license.
Given the technical nature of the wiki, each contributor agrees that her
work is published on the internet (at wiki.services.openoffice.org) and
that each page can be changed.
This does not imply that the content may be used elsewhere - unless the
contributor says so. This could easily be done by a license notice at a
wiki page.

>
> We're shooting ourselves in the foot if we're unable to
> set up a consistent licensing story.

As I already said - it would be great to have a perfect consistent
licensing. This would help to merge different materials. But this would
have some drawbacks. No matter what "our rules" are - you cannot merge
PDL and Creative Commons. So neither removing "PDL only rule" from OOo
website nor applying the same rule to the wiki would help.


Anyway: I strongly recommend that any documentation work that is started
at the wiki is put under PDL - if possible. This would allow integration
with current documentation.

André

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Jean Hollis Weber-3]

Andre Schnabel wrote,
>
> No -this does not answer any question. The wiki has been
> established without any licensing restrictions.  

Frank Peters wrote:

> We need to look at how we can make the wiki usable for
> documentation purposes

Is there any reason why the wiki cannot contain a "user
documentation" section that users are encouraged to read, and
that is linked to and from the Documentation Project's first
page? In other words, have some of OOo's user docs available on
the wiki itself, for use by the public.

In the past I was very sceptical of wikis as user documentation,
but now that I have used some very good ones (eg for Ubuntu
Linux), I think they are an important -- perhaps essential --
addition to books and other forms of documentation that can be
downloaded by users. Wiki documentation can easily be linked to
and from other information in any form and various locations.

Regards, Jean

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

Andre Schnabel wrote:

>> Interesting discussion, and necessary, too. We need to look
>> at how we can make the wiki usable for documentation purposes
>> either by changing the licensing of the wiki or the docs.
>
> I see no reason to change the licensing at the wiki, as there is no
> explicit license.

So that means that all pages on the wiki that currently
don't have an explicit license note carry no license at all
and that anyone who wants to reuse the content in any form
needs to contact the copyright holder for approval?

But who is the copyright holder? Do you look at the
wiki page history and identify the creator? What about
other contributors? Do I need to check back with everyone
on the history list?

> If you like to use the wiki as tool for starting with documents (as
> editing and changing is more easy there) simply put a licensing notice
> to the relevant page. But you should do this when you create the page.  
> Changing a license after several people have contributed is a leghal
> problem, as you need to ask all contributors if they agree to the
> license change.
>> The Sun docs group is currently evaluating how we can get dev
>> docs onto the ooo wiki, but we're focussing on the technical
>> side, not the legal side. I'll send a separate posting next week
>> with some updates and details.
>>
>> I would like to learn about compatibilities and incompatibilities
>> of the two channels (doc.oo.o and ooowiki). If the legal status
>> of the wiki is undefined this should be changed.
>
> Why? The current status of the wiki is, that each contributor holds the
> copyright of her contributions - and is free to put this under any license.
> Given the technical nature of the wiki, each contributor agrees that her
> work is published on the internet (at wiki.services.openoffice.org) and
> that each page can be changed.
> This does not imply that the content may be used elsewhere - unless the
> contributor says so. This could easily be done by a license notice at a
> wiki page.

I guess that means that every wiki page needs to have that
license notice, since wiki pages technically are independent
things that may (or may not) be grouped using other mechanisms
(like categories or toc pages)?

>> We're shooting ourselves in the foot if we're unable to
>> set up a consistent licensing story.
>
> As I already said - it would be great to have a perfect consistent
> licensing. This would help to merge different materials. But this would
> have some drawbacks. No matter what "our rules" are - you cannot merge
> PDL and Creative Commons. So neither removing "PDL only rule" from OOo
> website nor applying the same rule to the wiki would help.

> Anyway: I strongly recommend that any documentation work that is started
> at the wiki is put under PDL - if possible. This would allow integration
> with current documentation.

I guess that everything that was placed from the website to the wiki
is under PDL already?

Thanks
Frank



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

> Andre Schnabel wrote,
>>
>> No -this does not answer any question. The wiki has been
>> established without any licensing restrictions.  
>
> Frank Peters wrote:
>
>> We need to look at how we can make the wiki usable for
>> documentation purposes
>
> Is there any reason why the wiki cannot contain a "user documentation"
> section that users are encouraged to read, and that is linked to and
> from the Documentation Project's first page? In other words, have some
> of OOo's user docs available on the wiki itself, for use by the public.

As far as I understand, this should be possible. Furthermore, I see
the following cases when using the wiki. Please correct me, if I am wrong:

Creating new documentation content
If we create new documentation content on the wiki, it must be
created using the PDL to be compatible with doc.oo.o

Moving documentation content from doc.oo.o to the wiki
If we *move existing* documentation content from the web to the wiki
this content already is under PDL and there shouldn't be a problem. A
license note should state the situation.

Using existing wiki content
If we *use existing* documentation from the wiki to publish
somewhere else we need to check if it was published under a
license. If there is no license, what do we need to do? If there
is a license other than PDL, what do we need to do to be able to republish?
There is a considerable amount of docs available already (particularly
developer documentation).

I am thinking about cases like producing PDF or html content from
wiki content, using the wiki for collaboration and pdf/html for
publication.

> In the past I was very sceptical of wikis as user documentation, but now
> that I have used some very good ones (eg for Ubuntu Linux), I think they

Interestingly, they have a seperate section "community docs". I wonder
if this also is due to the licensing hassle.

> are an important -- perhaps essential -- addition to books and other
> forms of documentation that can be downloaded by users. Wiki
> documentation can easily be linked to and from other information in any
> form and various locations.

I would think that cross-linking is not an issue at all.

Frank



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Andre Schnabel]

Hi Frank,


Frank Peters schrieb:

> Andre Schnabel wrote:
>
>>> Interesting discussion, and necessary, too. We need to look
>>> at how we can make the wiki usable for documentation purposes
>>> either by changing the licensing of the wiki or the docs.
>>
>> I see no reason to change the licensing at the wiki, as there is no
>> explicit license.
>
> So that means that all pages on the wiki that currently
> don't have an explicit license note carry no license at all
> and that anyone who wants to reuse the content in any form
> needs to contact the copyright holder for approval?

Correct. But again - this situation is caused by the way, the wiki
started. As it started without licensing resctrictions, only the
Copyright is relevant.

>
> But who is the copyright holder? Do you look at the
> wiki page history and identify the creator? What about
> other contributors? Do I need to check back with everyone
> on the history list?

Yes - that is (imo) the legal implication.


>
> I guess that means that every wiki page needs to have that
> license notice, since wiki pages technically are independent
> things that may (or may not) be grouped using other mechanisms
> (like categories or toc pages)?

IANAL but I'd say yes.

>
>> Anyway: I strongly recommend that any documentation work that is
>> started at the wiki is put under PDL - if possible. This would allow
>> integration with current documentation.
>
> I guess that everything that was placed from the website to the wiki
> is under PDL already?

Hmm - good question. If anybody moved PDL materials to the wiki but did
not mention the license, this might be illegal. But it should be easy to
heal that.

André

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Jean Hollis Weber-3]

Frank Peters wrote:
> Creating new documentation content
> If we create new documentation content on the wiki, it must be
> created using the PDL to be compatible with doc.oo.o

If the documentation *stays on* the wiki and is not moved to
doc.oo.o, then it should not need to be created using the PDL.

> Moving documentation content from doc.oo.o to the wiki
> If we *move existing* documentation content from the web to the wiki
> this content already is under PDL and there shouldn't be a problem. A
> license note should state the situation.

I am thinking about moving doc content from elsewhere (eg
OOoAuthors or my or others' own personal websites), where the
existing material is under Creative Commons license. If such
material could stay under CC on the wiki, then that would be perfect.

I see no particular reason why some sections of the wiki cannot
be under CC and other under PDF. Each page could carry a small
license note at the bottom, to indicate which it is, so that
contributors (and, in the case of CC-licensed materials, reusers)
would know exactly what the situation is.

Regards, Jean

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

Hi André,

[...]

>> So that means that all pages on the wiki that currently
>> don't have an explicit license note carry no license at all
>> and that anyone who wants to reuse the content in any form
>> needs to contact the copyright holder for approval?
>
> Correct. But again - this situation is caused by the way, the wiki
> started. As it started without licensing resctrictions, only the
> Copyright is relevant.

The wiki copyright page states
"Copyright 1999-2007 by the contributing authors and Sun Microsystems, Inc."

Does that imply that Sun as joint copyright holder could impose
a license on the content, for example, PDL on unlicensed docs content?

>> But who is the copyright holder? Do you look at the
>> wiki page history and identify the creator? What about
>> other contributors? Do I need to check back with everyone
>> on the history list?
>
> Yes - that is (imo) the legal implication.

Yuck :-(

>> I guess that means that every wiki page needs to have that
>> license notice, since wiki pages technically are independent
>> things that may (or may not) be grouped using other mechanisms
>> (like categories or toc pages)?
>
> IANAL but I'd say yes.

Thanks André.

Frank



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> Frank Peters wrote:
>> Creating new documentation content
>> If we create new documentation content on the wiki, it must be
>> created using the PDL to be compatible with doc.oo.o
>
> If the documentation *stays on* the wiki and is not moved to doc.oo.o,
> then it should not need to be created using the PDL.

I agree.

>> Moving documentation content from doc.oo.o to the wiki
>> If we *move existing* documentation content from the web to the wiki
>> this content already is under PDL and there shouldn't be a problem. A
>> license note should state the situation.
>
> I am thinking about moving doc content from elsewhere (eg OOoAuthors or
> my or others' own personal websites), where the existing material is
> under Creative Commons license. If such material could stay under CC on
> the wiki, then that would be perfect.

It looks like this is the case.

> I see no particular reason why some sections of the wiki cannot be under
> CC and other under PDF. Each page could carry a small license note at
> the bottom, to indicate which it is, so that contributors (and, in the
> case of CC-licensed materials, reusers) would know exactly what the
> situation is.

Yes, agreed. For the existing doc relevant pages we should look
at clarifying the licensing situation by placing a license note
where required.

Frank


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Andre Schnabel]

Hi,

Frank Peters schrieb:

>>
>> Correct. But again - this situation is caused by the way, the wiki
>> started. As it started without licensing resctrictions, only the
>> Copyright is relevant.
>
> The wiki copyright page states
> "Copyright 1999-2007 by the contributing authors and Sun Microsystems,
> Inc."
>
> Does that imply that Sun as joint copyright holder could impose
> a license on the content, for example, PDL on unlicensed docs content?

I don't know, if this is enough to establish a joint copyright (in the
same way as JCA does) but I don't think so.

If this would be the case I would say, we could not add content from
third parties to the wiki. E.g. a Creative Commons licensed material
could not be added without asking the authors, because the license does
not allow to grant copyright privileges to a third party.  (This was the
same with PDL or any other regular license).

André

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...