incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg:
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:40:43 GMT
Rob,

I am not going to discuss increasingly-hypothetical cases when there is a specific situation
in hand.  It is my understanding from the Apache pages on the topic that Copyright notices
are not removed nor are they added to third-party material.

Furthermore, even when there is an open-source license (that's not exactly what the current
terms of use say), that does not mean Apache practice provides for direct appropriation of
the pages and removal of previous terms.

Since there is no possible harm in *not* making such changes at this time, I continue to recommend
that such modifications cease and that specific procedures for this specific web  site and
its content be worked-out/cleared with Apache legal.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:01
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg:

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure.
>
> Absent specific details that say these pages are covered by the SGA, that is another
reason to stop.
>

Not really.  This is mixing up copyright with license.  Regardless of
copyright, these files are clearly under an open source license [1],
and that license gives us permission to copy, modify and post them.
If included in the SGA we would have additional permissions, like the
ability to modify but not share the source for modifications.  But
that is not a right that we need, nor is it one that the podling will
ever exercise.  Of course, if we want to include such materials in a
release, then we need to investigate this further, for the benefit of
downstream consumers.

> And even then, the standard-form SGA is not a copyright transfer.  It is only a license.
 There has been information already that no copyright transferred.
>
> Affixing an Apache copyright notice appears to be inappropriate in any case.
>

But you could make that argument about almost any page at apache.org,
right?  What is the basis for having an Apache copyright statement on
any page, unless it was written as a work-for-hire by Apache staff?
This isn't a specific issue concerning these specific pages or this
podling.

By all means, satisfy your curiosity on the larger issue.  I'd be
interested in the answer as well.  I suspect that either every Apache
project as well as the ASF is in error on this point, or you and I are
in error.  I'm not taking bets on the outcome ;-)

> Affixing notices and licenses/terms has legal implications and that does not seem appropriate
for CTR actions.
>

I think we're just injecting the site notice onto every page that is
served up by the podling. My reading is that this is required by the
site branding policy [2]

I hope we're not sticking an Apache copyright statement into every
HTML source file.  That would be questionably on technical grounds as
well.

-Rob

[1] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html


>  - Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 09:27
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg:
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>> I think it is inappropriate to make web visible duplicate and different pages that
are presently available via the OpenOffice.org.  There is much more to determine before the
migration of the OpenOffice.org content and services is staged.  There is no worked-out consensus
on how that will progress through integration so that user-facing OpenOffice.org and project
facing openoffice.apache.org are separated appropriately, if at all.
>>
>> More important to me is that fact that those pages don't "belong" to us.
>>
>
> Are you sure?
>
> These are the static website pages per project:
> http://openoffice.org/projects/native-lang
>
> In order to check these in, the person who created these files would
> have needed to sign and return the OOo contributor agreement.  So
> Oracle has the ability to set a ALv2 on these.
>
> I know this is not true in all cases for all content on the OOo
> website, especially wiki content.  But don't you see how it is true in
> this specific case?
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> -Rob
>
>


Mime
View raw message