incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexandro Colorado <...@openoffice.org>
Subject Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?
Date Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:17:22 GMT
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com>wrote:

> Sam,
>
> 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.
>

Sorry for jumping in but it seems there is an missunderstading between Rob
and the ODFAuthor project. I think the ODFAuthor was in the position of many
quasi-independent groups like the OOo NGOs and others.

ODF provided a quasi official documentation effort. I say quasi, because it
wasnt really integrated with the documentation.openoffice.org group. AFAIK
there is no documentation.openoffice.org group anymore. At least I havent
seen much people step in from that group. So the default fallback in the
ODFAuthors.

However there is the use of the name as independent source. I think that is
on the clear, and was never an issue there. However the actual question is
regarding if this will be a fully official effort or not, and if it is, then
how can we make it possible. For example Apache have their own license for
documentation, but ODFAuthors actually have a different goal with the docs
than Apache.



>
> Thanks!
>
> --Jean
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:58 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com> 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:
> >
> > http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/
> >
> > > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* EspaƱol
http://es.openoffice.org

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message