incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Date Sat, 06 Aug 2011 22:17:09 GMT
Jean,

Thanks for the links.

My analysis is based on <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters>
and related pages.

Note: The Draw Guide material, which is apparently being updated as we speak, is apparently
now V3.3, not 3.2.  Also, the Math Guide claims publication on 2011-04-28 and being applicable
to V3.3, so the information on the download page appears to be out of date as well.

Summary: The User Guides are essentially third-party materials incorporated into the content
of OpenOffice.org.  In the individual User Guides there are copyright notices with regard
to the collective contributors.  Neither Oracle nor Sun are identified as contributors in
those notices. It seems unlikely that any Oracle license grant to Apache applies (or even
can apply) to these materials.

 - Dennis

ANALYSIS OF THE WAY COPYRIGHT AND LICENSING ARE HANDLED FOR THE USER GUIDES:

 1. The web page has a Wiki:Copyright links which states, as we have noted before, a common
notice page that says

  "Copyright 1999, 2010 by the contributing authors and Oracle and/or its affiliates.
 
  "Sections or single pages of this wiki are covered by certain licenses. If a licence notice
is displayed at a given wiki page, you may use the content of this page according to the license.
In case you are contributing to such a page, your contribution is covered by this licensing
terms."


 2. The particular page does not have any different copyright notice, but it does assert that
the page is under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY).

 3. The PDFs have the following notices, as Jean mentioned before:
    ==============================================================

   "This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed below. You may
distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU General Public
License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), version 3 or later, or the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version
3.0 or later.
   "All trademarks within this guide belong to their legitimate owners."

   There is one chapter identified as licensed under CC-BY 3.0 only, with no dual licensing.

  3.1 There are named contributors.  The lists of names vary from document to document.  Note
that neither Oracle nor Sun are identified as contributors and neither is singled out in the
copyright notice.

  3.2 IMPORTANT: The feedback link is to odfauthors-discuss@.lists.odfauthors.org.  Also,
the PDF documents contain information about where versions of the document can be found at
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org>.  

  3.2 There are Acknowledgments sometimes.  These can trace a fascinating history of translation
and contribution back to OpenOffice.org 1.x sources.  Not all of the acknowledged contributors
are listed as directly-named contributors (3.1).

  3.3 The documents bear the imprint of ODF Authors (sometimes OOo Authors) and direct readers
to those sites to provide feedback, report problems, etc.

  4. The Guides are available as PDF and ODT documents for OpenOffice 3.3.  For OpenOffice
3.2, the guides are also available as wiki pages.  The site also has OpenOffice.org 2.x User
Guides. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 14:32
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)

Dennis,

The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo3.2 guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides

The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo2.x guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOoAuthors_User_Manual

That's the bulk of the material. I don't recall if any other pages are
CC-BY, but I don't think it's a lot.

You can also look for Categories: CC-BY License | Documentation
All of the relevant pages should have those categories assigned to them.
(If not, I goofed in not adding the category info.)

If it helps, here are more detailed links:
The user guides for OOo3.3 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_Chapters_ODT

The user guides for OOo3.2 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters_ODT

--Jean

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:09 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Jean,
> 
> I'd like to have a closer look.
> 
> Can you provide some links to some of the specific material on OpenOffice.org?  And how
much material do you estimate there is that is licensed in this manner.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 19:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
> 
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 22:18 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> > > contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> > > agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> > > they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
> > >
> > > What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> > > Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> > > elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
> > >
> > 
> > You asked previously about CC-BY.  I said that was on the list of
> > compatible licenses.  You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
> > comment on GPL.
> 
> Your note about CC-BY reached me after I sent this note to the list. At
> the time I wrote the above, I did not have that information. Sorry to
> add to the noise confusion!
> 
> > 
> > In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
> > Documentation License (GFDL)?
> 
> Yes, I meant GPL. Here is the copyright statement from a typical user
> guide chapter:
> 
> "This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
> below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
> the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
> version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."
> 
> Derivative works (which would include any Apache-OOo materials based on
> these books) could therefore be licensed under either GPL or CC-BY, so
> the GPL license statement could be dropped if that's an issue.
> 
> > As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
> > 
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> > 
> > CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
> > 
> > Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed.  But this may just be because no
> > project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
> > 
> > What version are you licensing under?
> 
> CC-BY 3.0 or later.
> 
> --Jean
> 




Mime
View raw message