incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Hollis Weber <>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + (was branding)
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:53:36 GMT
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 19:12 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:

> The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc
> have?  If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and
> redistribute the documentation then we need it under Apache 2.0, which
> is what would happen if the author signed the iCLA.

The user guides are under CC-BY license. Your hypothetical case could
reuse them just as they could reuse material under the Apache license. 

Yes, I realise you're talking about wiki material in the rest of this


> Project releases, naturally, are all under Apache 2.0 and must
> guarantee these rights.  This is true for any doc that is bundled with
> them.
> As you know, we don't currently bundle the wiki doc with the releases.
>  But should we reserve the right to do this?  Let me give you a very
> plausible use case for that:
> Imagine a school or government department, or a company, that wants to
> deploy OpenOffice in their organization, but also wants to host their
> own copy of the wiki documentation, inside their firewall, perhaps
> with some customized material.  This could range from adding
> additional links to internal template servers, to removing irrelevant
> information, to adding documentation regarding internal-only plugins.
> It could be complete, or only for some small number of pages.
> Is something like that a reasonable use?  Something that we should
> "reserve the right" to support?  I think so.  If we ever wanted to
> support something like this, then we would need the wiki (or at least
> the core doc parts of the wiki) be under a common permissive license.

View raw message