incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Peters <fpe.mli...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: An example of the license problems we're going to face
Date Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:00:45 GMT
[...]

> 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