Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 75.98.160.130 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: <fpe@openoffice.org>
References: <00a501cc2aac$ddabb120$99031360$@acm.org>
	<4DF79C75.8070905@gmail.com>
 <BANLkTi=QC3ARhxwgks74Q6_+pDO4W_hOog@mail.gmail.com>
 <014101cc2aca$cec79b10$6c56d130$@acm.org> <4DF7BFD9.2060203@gmail.com>
 <019801cc2ae7$eba4cd80$c2ee6880$@acm.org> <4DF83CA8.1050603@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF83CA8.1050603@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:04:03 -0700
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <021401cc2b2a$6962df90$3c289eb0$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: 
 AQFVqQQVezg9qkPZkZnDx9gOz7r+OQJGIs7hAdimfKQDFI2nZQMRskPrAY2qKIQBHYBDJ5VDfa3Q
Content-Language: en-us

I think that's reading too much into the Copyright Notice. =20

The notice is not enough to determine what portions are under whose =
copyright.  It is *not* all under Oracle copyright.  In fact, I suspect =
the only part that is will be from Sun and Oracle employees (as work for =
hire) and perhaps others who signed CLAs (although the terms don't =
require one for the site, including the wiki).

That formula notice is not enough for Oracle to act as the holder of =
copyrights that were in no way transferred by the other contributors.  =
(CLAs are not required under the general site terms and definitely not =
for wiki contributions.)

Assuming that the terms can be held to apply to the wiki (there is no =
notice on the wiki and no click-through with regard to the terms that =
I've seen), all anyone can do (including you or I) is sublicense and =
that is not the same thing.  It is nice that the terms of use assert a =
default permissive license, but that is difficult to apply to the wiki =
also because people are allowed to (1) attach their own copyright =
notices and, as we have seen, (2) assert less permissive licenses by =
signing up on that special list.

Recall that, in the US and I assume elsewhere, copyright must be =
explicitly transferred in writing except for the work-for-hire case.

In short, the wiki is a mess.  IMHO as we like to say.

And, IANAL, but I would love to play one on television.

 - Dennis

=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 22:01
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: fpe@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org =
provenance

> 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.

As I mentioned in the reply to Thorsten's mail, according to
the copyright page, Oracle co-owns the copyright to all wiki
content, unless you dispute the validity of that statement as such.

> I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution  =
flag

And rightly so.

 > -- another matter to check into.

Frank

> - 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
> [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14,
> 2011 13:09 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the
> project - wiki.services.openoffice.org 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?
>
> Frank
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein
>> [mailto:gstein@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To:
>> ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the project -
>> wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
>> <frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com>   wrote:
>>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>>>
>>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on
>>>> visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>>>>
>>>> There is this one:
>>>> =
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>=
.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>
And that leads to this interesting one:
>>>> =
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.=

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>
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
>>
>