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 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:37:43 GMT
I want to connect some dots between terms-of-use and licenses.

The terms-of-use, such as <http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use>, linked at the bottom
of the OpenOffice.org pages do not provide a license to those pages.  The terms of use provide
disclaimers on behalf of the host and set conditions that apply to contributions that might
be made by an user of the site.  But the presence of the terms of use on the bottom of a page
is independent of whether or not the page in question is partly or entirely such a contribution.
 I expect that the same would be true for any terms-of-use that Apache provides on the bottoms
of web pages that are produced as part of Apache projects.  

The fact that the check-out of the version-controlled form of (most of) those pages via SVN
does not carry any notices does not mean they are not under someone's copyright.  There is
also no indication of them being under any license such as that described in [1: <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html>],
however.  

Now, I don't think anyone (or at least, not a lot of anyones) will be disturbed to see us
preserving the OpenOffice.org site and its operation, as well as incubating the site into
a form that aligns with the incubation of the development process and production of more releases.
 Even if the site is not covered by the SGA, I doubt that there will be a problem so long
as there is deliberate care and accountability for the origin of the material.

My appeal on this thread is for our exercise of due care in making that transition, and respecting
the concerns of the ASF for how that is done and any specific determinations that are made
by the legal folks.  

I have other concerns in how a safe landing of OpenOffice.org is achieved, as I am sure others
have as well.  Nevertheless, this thread and my specific concrete concern here is solely about
substitution of terms and addition of copyright and license notices on materials as served
from web sites, particularly without any legal review.  (The branding issue is an interesting
separate matter.  I hope there are ways to mitigate that for material that did not originate
in the podling.)

 - 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