incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg:
Date Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:17:15 GMT
Rob, looking at the source on SVN doesn't matter.  What matters is what is served up in a browser
and what claims are made on the page that is served up.  THAT AND ONLY THAT IS what I am talking
about.  It goes with being put into production web site, whatever the dynamic behavior is
that goes with serving up the page.

I have a secondary concern about how a soft landing for is managed, but my
fundamental concern on this thread has to with notices and licenses however they get there.
 And however they get there on, too.

And why is it even necessary to go down all these alleys?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 14:23
Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg:

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> Rob,
> Please look at
> WACK de/,
WACK ar/,
> WACK lt/,
> and so on.
> Also do a View Source and look at the comment injected into the <head> elements.
> The proper comparison is with these pages,
> I think this is too far ahead of ourselves by any measure.

So I'm looking at:

I see no changes to the source.   You can see the source file in our SVN here:

What you are seeing is the page after the CMS has munged it, adding a
consistent title, logo and footer, like it does for every other file
on our website:

"Apache "" is an effort undergoing incubation at The
Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator.
Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further
review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision
making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other
successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a
reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does
indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.

Copyright © 2011 The Apache Software Foundation Licensed under the
Apache License, Version 2.0. Contact Us | Terms of Use
Apache and the Apache feather logos are trademarks of The Apache
Software Foundation. and the seagull logo are registered trademarks of The
Apache Software Foundation.
Other names appearing on the site may be trademarks of their respective owners."

Do you find all of this  objectionable, or only parts of it?    Maybe
we can just take out the objectionable parts of the footer pending
your investigation, so we can move on with the other pages?

But note that the exactly same footer appears on every page of our
website [1], and much of it is dictated by branding policy [2].



>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir []
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 13:40
> To:;
> Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <> wrote:
>> 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.
> You miss the point.  Nothing in the iCLA nor in the ALv2 assigns
> copyright to Apache.  So from the perspective of copyright, every
> member-contributed page at Apache is 3rd party content.  Every.
> Single.  Page.  We have permission only through the license.  So my
> example is not hypothetical.  It is ubiquitous.
>> 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.
> What terms have been removed?
> For example, here is the Arabic home page in the OpenOffice repository:
> Note that there are no notices or copyright statement on that page.
> Now look at the version checked into SVN:
> I don't see a single notice that has been added or removed in the file.  Do you?
>> 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.
> Maybe it would be faster to check SVN and satisfy yourself that we're
> not adding/removing notices?  I don't think anything from Apache
> legal-discuss will overcome the underlying asymmetry in perceptions
> here.
> Of  course, if you know of cases where notices are being removed, then
> I'd welcome specifics on that.  If it were occurring then I agree it
> is something we should not be doing.
> -Rob
>>  - Dennis
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir []
>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:01
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <> 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,
>> 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]
>> [2]
>>>  - Dennis
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rob Weir []
>>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 09:27
>>> To:;
>>> Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg:
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> I think it is inappropriate to make web visible duplicate and different pages
that are presently available via the  There is much more to determine before
the migration of the content and services is staged.  There is no worked-out
consensus on how that will progress through integration so that user-facing
and project facing 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:
>>> 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

View raw message