incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terry Ellison <>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + (was branding)
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:32:36 GMT
> Obviously different open source foundations or forges or projects will
> make this determination in different ways.  At Apache, the requirement
> is described as:
> "Using A Wiki To Create Documentation
> Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
> website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
> must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
> documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
> MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
> So documentation is special.  And a lot of what I see on the OOo is
> documentation, for end users as well as developers.  Build
> instructions, component architecture overviews, FAQ's, Admin Guides,
> etc.  These are all forms of project documentation.  I don't see how
> we avoid limiting write access to those pages.
> Remember, the thing that ensures that someone can take an Apache
> project and create a new distribution or a new derivative of it, is
> the Apache 2,0 license.  That ensures that they can take the code, the
> documentation, translations, etc., and reuse it.  This includes the
> documentation.

OOo isn't a new project.  It's been in continuous development for some 
15 years, and has a user population in millions.  The active support 
community is in hundreds if not thousands.  Before we use the letter of 
some guideline to abandon a huge body of knowledge and good-faith 
contributions perhaps we should seek clarification on the interpretation 
of such guidelines by the appropriate Apache authorities?

I agree with you that the documentation that is formally distributed 
with the product such as the online documentation must be properly 
licensed to be distributed, as does website content which carries the 
Apache logo and is "Apache content".

But does this really apply to a community wiki, where some user has 
created a HowTo in Russian on using DataPilots in Calc, say.  Are you 
saying that he will have to sign an iCLA or we delete the content.  If 
some user spots a typo in the documentation and corrects it in the wiki, 
are you saying that we must ignore this unless she signs an iCLA?

I apologise if these seem trivial, but the Community wiki and forums by 
nature contain content generated by the community, and there is a true 
continuum here.  Surely, an end-user product as complex as OOo can only 
succeed in a FLOSS world if it embraces rather than rejects a community 
support model.

View raw message