incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?
Date Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:35:47 GMT
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <> 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)?

I intentionally didn't answer that part of the question (at least in part 1).

> 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.

If the ODFAuthors group don't want this work included or even
referenced by AOOo, the only detail to be worked out is any trademark
issues, which I assume won't be insurmountable.

Inclusion or even endorsement will require coming to an agreement with
this group, which includes yourself and possibly (depending on what is
proposed) Legal Affairs.

> Thanks!
> --Jean

- Sam Ruby

> 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