incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Peters <>
Subject Re: Wiki for the project - provenance
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2011 05:40:59 GMT
> I was more concerned by the statement just beneath the broad
> copyright notice:
> "Sections or single pages of this wiki are covered by certain
> licenses. If a licence notice is displayed at a given wiki page, you
> may use the content of this page according to the license. In case
> you are contributing to such a page, your contribution is covered by
> this licensing terms."
> The Copyright notice itself lacks a certain precision, for that
> matter.  Consider the discussion page and the question that seems to
> have been sitting unanswered since 2005:
> <>.

Yes, this situation is a little "fuzzy". But the question is
irrelevant for this matter since we are pondering about
copyright, not licensing.

>  And some of the authors seem to have attached non-permissive
> licenses to their contribution.
> I just created an account on that Wiki and I didn't have to agree to
> anything so far.  I'm also not able to even edit my own User page
> though, and I did confirm my e-mail.  Interesting.

That is news to me. I have been trying to get a click-through
agreement implemented for a long time to clarify things right
from the start but, alas, to no avail


> - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters
> [] Sent: Tuesday, June 14,
> 2011 14:39 To: Subject: Re: Wiki for the
> project - provenance
> Am 14.06.2011 23:31, schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
>> Frank Peters wrote:
>>>> 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?
>> Hi Frank,
>> um, I think the point made here is that certain content is *not*
>> copyright-shared with Oracle, and thus cannot be (easily)
>> relicensed?
> The point was about licenses and not copyright.
> The mentioned wiki Copyright page says "Copyright 1999, 2010 by the
> contributing authors and Oracle and/or its affiliates."
> Frank

View raw message