incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: An invitation to committers to the OOo Community Forums
Date Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:49:48 GMT
In the interests of reaching an acceptable
outcome for everyone, I suggest we not go
down the rabbit hole of who legally owns
the forums.  Just so long as at the end of
the road there is no question of ownership
once the migration is completed, it makes
no sense to pursue this issue further.

>From: Rob Weir <>
>Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 2:47 PM
>Subject: Re: An invitation to committers to the OOo Community Forums
>On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:40 PM, drew <> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 18:29 +0100, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:35:05 -0400
>>> Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>> > This is really easy to resolve:
>>> >
>>> > 1) Discussions on evolving forum policies and rules must occur on
>>> > ooo-dev.  These are tantamount to proposals, and they are subject to
>>> > Apache Way decision making, just like any other part of the project.
>>> > If I wanted to suggest a different editing policy for the community
>>> > wiki, or a new moderation policy for ooo-users, I would be slapped
>>> > down if I raised it on ooo-private.  The transparency principle
>>> > applies equally to the forums.
>>> Discussions behind the scene are not proposals; they emerge into one or more
consensuses, which are then considered as proposals and a selection made. I doubt there will
be much objection to this.
>>> >
>>> > 2) Non-confidential, day-to-day operations of the forum should occur
>>> > in a publicly-readable forum, or on a new public mailing list. I'd let
>>> > the forum volunteers decide which.
>>> Such a publicly readable form is the Forum, which is openly accessible; to post
to it requires a User to choose a Username and to indicate his OS and version of OOo or OOo
>>> >
>>> > 3) Private discussions on confidential matters, including your
>>> > grandmother, occur either on ooo-private or on a private forum that
>>> > echos its posts to ooo-private.  Again, I'd let the forum volunteers
>>> > decide which.
>>> These occur on three dedicated channels as I outlined earlier; the offer is there
to allow interested Apache personel access to them immediately.  A more public (even if still
private mechanism) can be worked out, such as that they can be automatically echoed to a monitorong
list.  Much of the discussion is merely administrative and may increase the load on such
monitoring lists.
>>> I will echo this posting to the private OOo channels - perhaps we are now getting
>> Hello List,
>> Wearing a three cornered hat: Founding member of the User
>> Community Forums, Administrator of the English language forum, member in
>> good standing of the Volunteer Group.
>> First - the current owners of the User Community Forums,
>> the instance of the phpBB softwaree and the content within the attached
>> database is owned by the group of individuals known as the Volunteer
>> Group within the forum. This group currently consists of 75 individuals.
>> This ownership was an integral part of the agreement made between the
>> founding members and management at Sun Micro-Systems. The arrangement
>> was materially no different from a standard hosting contract with a
>> commercial provider, with certain branding considerations required in
>> lieu of cash payments.
>Sorry, I don't see any basis for your claimed ownership of the
>content.  The forums right now link to a TOU page:
>This includes:
>"c. Other Submissions. (This Section 4.c applies to all Submissions
>other than source code contributed to a Project, which is governed by
>the preceding section.) The Host does not claim ownership of Your
>Submissions. However, in order to fulfill the purposes of this Site,
>You must give the Host and all Users the right to post, access,
>evaluate, discuss, and refine Your Submissions. In legalese: You
>hereby grant to the Host and all Users a royalty-free, perpetual,
>irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right
>and license under Your intellectual property rights to reproduce,
>modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from,
>distribute, perform, display and use Your Submissions (in whole or
>part) and to incorporate them in other works in any form, media, or
>technology now known or later developed, all subject to the obligation
>to retain any copyright notices included in Your Submissions. All
>Users, the Host, and their sublicensees are responsible for any
>modifications they make to the Submissions of others. "
>"Host" here is defined as Oracle.
>> Second - The User Community Forums had no formal
>> relationship whatsoever with the Community Council. It
>> had no representation on the council and indeed members of the forum, by
>> virtue of their relationship with the forums, where never offered a vote
>> for any officers of the council.
>> Third - The domain name was the property of
>> Sun-Microsystems, later transfered to Oracle Corporation and use of said
>> URL was at the discretion of the owner.
>> Fourth - The owners of the User Community Forums have an
>> explicit right to relocate the services provided at
>>, along with all content generated by the
>> site, to a new location solely at the discretion of the Volunteer Group.
>> ---------
>> Taking the hat off.
>> --------
>> It was my personal hope that this event would also, finally, allow the
>> forums to become an actual part of the main project and ownership
>> transfered from the volunteer group to Apache OpenOffice - still is, but
>> the road to get there I'm afraid is just a tad bumpier now.
>> Respectfully,
>> Drew Jensen
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message