incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Hollis Weber <>
Subject Re: Access to wiki
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 07:14:45 GMT
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 10:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:

> The other set of concerns I had was with respect to content license.
> Today we seem to have a mix of 4 different licenses for contributed
> content, as well as content that does not have any evident license
> attached to it.  I realize cleaning up the past is nearly impossible,
> But is there anything we can do better going forward?
> In particular, please note that I'd like to encourage IBM
> contributions of documentation to the project, along with our Symphony
> work.  For example, we have doc related to enterprise deployment and
> this is applicable to OpenOffice as well as Symphony.  But if we
> contribute this under Apache 2.0 and then it is edited by anonymous
> (or pseudonymous) users who have not signed the iCLA, then our
> contributions can be immediately contaminated by unlicensed (or
> incompatibly licensed) changes, making it impossible for us to use
> future revisions of own doc.  As you can imagine, that would make it
> very difficult for us, or any other corporation, to collaborate on
> documentation.
> So that's the essential trade-off.  If we require iCLA for substantial
> content contributors, then you will cause some contributors to stop
> participating  But if you don't require an iCLA, then you will inhibit
> participation from corporations.  And note that this is true for all
> reusable content in the project.  So code, help, documentation and
> translations.  If we want participation from corporations then we need
> to have the means to establish and maintain the pedigree of the
> contributions under a consistent license (or set of compatible
> licenses).

I see your point, and I think it's a very important one. If this
particular aspect had come up earlier in the discussion, then I missed

I thought the idea was to have two wikis, one for (among other things)
"official documentation" that requires contributors to sign the iCLA,
and the other for "community documentation" that does not. It would seem
to me that the items you described fit into the "official docs", while
much (I suspect the majority) of the existing OOo wiki contents fits
more into "community docs", with the few "official" docs on the existing
wiki either under the Oracle brand and appropriate license or
essentially obsolete (for example, the wiki version of the user guides,
which only go up to v3.2).

If this is the case, then it seems to me there is no real problem.
Simply apply different rules to the two wikis. What am I missing? 


View raw message