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: An example of the license problems we're going to face
Date Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:45:27 GMT
I believe that is correct.  I have seen Jean Hollis Weber mention CC-BY-SA, but I recall only
seeing CC-BY (with GPL as dual license).  That is continuing with the LibreOffice editions,
which are under GPL 3+ and CC-BY 3+.

There is an odd trip-wire in CC-BY that has been there since CC-BY 2.0, having to do with
a requirement on delivery by means having DRM constraints, but that has not impeded viewing
CC-BY as Category A.

In any case those are all third-party works and we get to deal with them accordingly.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Peters [mailto:fpe.mlists@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 09:01
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Rob Weir
Subject: Re: An example of the license problems we're going to face

[...]

> With Apache, our releases are under the Apache 2.0 license. This is
> not a copyleft license.  Apache code can be modified and republished
> without making the changes also available under an open source
> license.
>
> The Oracle SGA puts the Apache 2.0 license on the files from OOo that
> Sun/Oracle had rights to under the various forms of their contributor
> agreements.  This predominantly covered source code.  But it did not
> cover project documentation.  Documentation was generally under the
> copyleft Public Documentation License (PDL) or CC BY-A.

IIRC CC licensed docs are under CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA,
hence not copylefted, see
http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/Category:CC-BY_License

> This is going to cause us problems.  A specific example.  The main
> build instructions for OpenOffice.org are in a PDL-licensed  Building
> Guide document [1].  This means that our own source code releases are
> unable to be accompanied by instructions on how to build the product.
> This is quite odd, compared to most other projects, say SVN, which
> include build instructions with their source releases [2].

We could just rewrite the building guide and put it under AL.

[...]

> As I've said before, we can't change the past.  But we can prevent
> repeating past mistakes.  We need to ensure that in the future that

In the past, this was no mistake but a prerequisite for docs.

> the core project documentation is developed and maintained under the
> ALv2 license.

I thought this was a given anyway?

As to user docs produced by the ODFAuthors we need to ask them to 
dual-license as they did for OOo, but I am not sure if their
current practice to publish under CC-BY would be sufficient anyway
(see above).

Frank


Mime
View raw message