incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Hollis Weber <jeanwe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2011 02:40:09 GMT
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