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 netsroth@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-mailer
         :x-accept-language:x-location:user-agent;
        b=ocBR39SUcQAxlmD7uC/mSyhP2XjY4OPk5XUeYBwwSmJ6rj3Vd6a1/z0ByigtdUSEiN
         t3inGpRTcttyPbaUC531fU1xKjAWX3Re+bEVNtyD9nYcSdsclvFX9YunnAPaXvGtAo5J
         0AIZDbiKXk3wiHokemLMRbOLGJckl6GMrBXVU=
Sender: Thorsten <netsroth@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:46:36 +0200
From: Thorsten Behrens <thb@documentfoundation.org>
To: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, fpe@openoffice.org,
	legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Message-ID: <20110615084636.GF12021@thinkpad.thebehrens.net>
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>
 <021401cc2b2a$6962df90$3c289eb0$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="O9uFcEIpmYvy18ul"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <021401cc2b2a$6962df90$3c289eb0$@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

--O9uFcEIpmYvy18ul
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Should we maybe move that over to legal-discuss?

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I think that's reading too much into the Copyright Notice. =20
>=20
> The notice is not enough to determine what portions are under whose copyr=
ight.  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 th=
e site, including the wiki).
>=20
> That formula notice is not enough for Oracle to act as the holder of copy=
rights that were in no way transferred by the other contributors.  (CLAs ar=
e not required under the general site terms and definitely not for wiki con=
tributions.)
>=20
> Assuming that the terms can be held to apply to the wiki (there is no not=
ice on the wiki and no click-through with regard to the terms that I've see=
n), all anyone can do (including you or I) is sublicense and that is not th=
e 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 ar=
e 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.
>=20
> Recall that, in the US and I assume elsewhere, copyright must be explicit=
ly transferred in writing except for the work-for-hire case.
>=20
> In short, the wiki is a mess.  IMHO as we like to say.
>=20
> And, IANAL, but I would love to play one on television.
>=20
>  - Dennis
>=20
> =20
>=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 provenan=
ce
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution  flag
>=20
> And rightly so.
>=20
>  > -- another matter to check into.
>=20
> Frank
>=20
> > - 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:Copyri=
ghts>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> And that leads to this interesting one:
> >>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declarat=
ion>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> 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
> >>
> >
>=20

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

--O9uFcEIpmYvy18ul
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk34cWwACgkQ0atnB9QI2h8anwCg0bQtq5wbTRfUv6+slG4t1wWw
ZXkAnjr/041kciIQWOWqN6Hp9Xe5nedS
=ftWt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--O9uFcEIpmYvy18ul--