incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Wiki for the project - provenance
Date Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:08:04 GMT
Agreed where Oracle has the exclusive copyright.  My only concern is that those other-license
pages might not be under Oracle copyright and we will need to find out.

I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution flag -- another matter to
check into.

 - Dennis

PS: I am working to break myself of the convenient but misleading term, "relicensing," since
only the owner of the copyright can set license terms and offer multiple (non-exclusive) licenses.
 There is no downstream "relicensing."  What happens is more nuanced and relicensing appears
not to be an appropriate term.

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Peters [] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 13:09
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - provenance

> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an individual-page
> basis.

That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the
wiki has traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle
remedy this by (as copyright holder) relicensing the content
under AL like done with the source?


> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein
> [] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To:
> Subject: Re: Wiki for the project -
> provenance
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
> <>  wrote:
>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on
>>> visiting
>>> There is this one:
>>> <>.
And that leads to this interesting one:
>>> <>.
None of those are what I would call permissive.
>> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually
>> donates the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document
>> equivalent of it) as well. Same holds for the website content.
> There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
> The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
> If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content, then
> they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we can
> license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
> Cheers, -g

View raw message