db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <rick.hille...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Copyright clairification for fo2html.xsl in Derby software.
Date Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:46:26 GMT
On 1/18/12 2:07 PM, Mike Matrigali wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> On 1/10/12 8:31 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Here are some solutions listed in declining
>>>>> order of effort:
>>>>> 1) Remove fo2html.xsl.
>>>>> + Easy.
>>>>> - We will lose the no-frames version of the html docs. I do use the
>>>>> no-frames version when citing doc passages in posts to derby-user. 
>>>>> That is
>>>>> my only use for the no-frames version. Passage citations would be 
>>>>> a little
>>>>> more cumbersome, but I could live with that.
>>>>> 2) Track down Nikolai Grigoriev and get him to open source this 
>>>>> file under
>>>>> Apache 2.0.
>>>>> + Preserves the no-frames version of the docs.
>>>>> + Relatively low effort on our part.
>>>>> - Unbounded problem. We're not certain that we can track him down 
>>>>> or that he
>>>>> would agree to use the Apache 2.0 license.
>>>>> 3) Replace fo2html.xsl with an xsl transformation which we write 
>>>>> ourselves.
>>>>> + Preserves the no-frames version of the docs.
>>>>> - Probably outside the current skill sets of our current 
>>>>> contributors.
>>>>> 4) Convert the docs to another source format.
>>>>> + Would be an opportunity to address our dissatisfactions with DITA,
>>>>> including its accessibility problems and our inability to generate 
>>>>> a doc
>>>>> index.
>>>>> - Big effort.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -Rick
>>>> Quick question/comment re 2): Nikolai Grigoriev is listed as author
>>>> but isn't the copyright by renderX? Daniel Dobbins said he tried to
>>>> contact the author without result, perhaps he didn't try the
>>>> company...But - I am not a lawyer.
>>>> I prefer option 4 but have no time/skill, so for short term 1.
>>>> Myrna
>>> Right, you noticed this and Knut noticed this. In the meantime, I 
>>> noticed it too and I have started an email conversation with RenderX 
>>> about the possibility of their licensing the file under Apache 2.0. 
>>> Stay tuned...
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Rick
>> The CEO at RenderX has responded:
>> "I'm sorry, but after careful consideration, I have failed to find 
>> enough
>> benefits to us to grant this permission based on the your email below.
>> If you believe that it's worth your time, then we can discuss this 
>> real time
>> - Skype or phone."
> Option 1 seems like safest approach at this time.  What would we have to
> do with existing derby releases?
We could pull fo2html.xsl and the single-html docs from all 
distributions on our download page. This might require pulling the 
releases off the website and calling a vote on replacements for the 
releases which we think users care about.

I don't know if it is possible to remove the questionable distributions 
from the Apache archives.

We might want to consult legal-discuss before putting a lot of effort 
into this.

Those are my thoughts. Other opinions?

> We should log a JIRA at least for option 3.  As mentioned I don't think
> current committers have the skill set for this, but maybe we could get
> someone later.  I have no idea what the effort might be, maybe it is
> a google summer of code project?
I can see two JIRAs coming out of this discussion:

i) A JIRA for option (1)

ii) A JIRA for a replacement technology. The lowest effort replacements 
discussed so far seem to be option (3) and the DITA chunking which 
Kristian mentioned in a recent post.

>> I don't see much that we can offer RenderX. It's unlikely that I can 
>> change their minds, so I'm not inclined to pursue this option 
>> further. If someone else would like to continue the discussion with 
>> RenderX, I can put you in touch with their CEO. Otherwise, I vote for 
>> option (1) above.
>> Thanks,
>> -Rick

View raw message