incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Hollis Weber <>
Subject Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?
Date Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:05:55 GMT

To make sure I understand your answer to Rob, could you please clarify
for me:

What about user-oriented documentation (user guides, tutorials, etc, as
listed by Rob)? 

Or was that covered by your answer at the bottom of your note, about
making a concrete proposal for presentation to legal-discuss? I couldn't
tell if that applied only to things for inclusion in an official release
(Rob's item 2), or if it applied also to things not included in a
release but provided on the AOOo website or wiki (Rob's item 1).

I am asking, of course, because the independent ODFAuthors group, which
has been producing the OOo user guides, would like to continue doing do
for AOOo, while remaining independent. 



On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:58 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: 
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> >
> > 1) Are there any required license issues that we need to heed related
> > to our website?  Assume for sake of argument that we're talking about
> > web site content that never becomes part of a release.   So user
> > guides, tutorials, as-is document templates that users could download,
> > 3rd party plugins, additional 3rd party translation packs, user
> > forums, etc.  Is there any requirement that these all be harmonized on
> > Apache 2.0 and compatible licenses?  Or can we have a mix of licenses
> > to that content, hosted by Apache in a sufficiently sand boxed
> > environment?
> >
> > In other words, are the project's websites and all that we host at
> > Apache required to be under an Apache-compatible license?  Or can we
> > have copyleft "extras" that we host, with caveats, but do not build
> > ourselves or include in our releases?
> We generally don't host third party plugins, be they copyleft,
> proprietary, or even under the Apache License.  One place that such
> could be placed is:
> > 2) If an existing independent group wishes to remain independent, and
> > develop documentation or translations, or other similar modules, and
> > then contribute it to the Apache OpenOffice project for inclusion in
> > an official release, can this be done?   Assume that the work is made
> > available to us under a compatible license, so it is (in that sense)
> > allowable in a release.
> >
> > Is there any mechanism for an Apache project to routinely accept and
> > release such modules?  Or would this require an SGA/Incubation
> > proposal each time?  Or is there any streamlined way of doing this?
> If there is an acceptable concrete proposal on how to deal with this
> was presented to legal-discuss what the likely outcome of that
> discussion would be is a narrowly crafted exception allowing this.
> I do not see cc-by as a likely red flag.
> I would like to see some evidence that project members are able to participate.
> I would also like to see some evidence that project members endorse this.
> Certainly, other topics may come up in the discussion, but those would
> be areas I would seek to provide concrete answers to before posting to
> legal-discuss.
> > I'm not arguing that #1 or #2 is a good idea or not.  But some
> > conversations seem to be leading to these directions, so I think it is
> > worth clarifying exactly what is allowed.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Rob
> - Sam Ruby

View raw message