Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rabastus@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rabastus@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:27:18 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimtwv7wa=w1mzQnkWpe-3vGdreYVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?
From: Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Let me state my assumptions, which might be incorrect, but I think it
is worth being explicit, so my errors can be more easily corrected.

Apache projects make releases.  These releases consist at least of
tarballs containing source code. The contents of releases must be
consist only of files under the Apache 2.0 license, or licenses which
ASF has declared to be compatible with it.  This includes not only
source code files, but also any bundled documentation.

To ensure that the releases remain compatible with Apache 2.0, the
repositories that are used to feed into the releases are also
controlled.  So SVN can only be written by those who have signed the
ICLA.  A wiki used for bundled product documentation is restricted to
committers as well.  Presumably, to the extent we include translation
files in our releases, these would need a similar level of attention,
in terms of license and access control.

Am I anywhere close in the above?

If so, that leads me to two questions:


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?


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?


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