incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <>
Subject Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:56:56 GMT
The fundamental point is that Apache projects need to produce useful 
software for the public good, under the Apache license.

I.e. users of Apache software have expectations that they can make use 
of Apache products - as well as the source code of those projects - 
under the Apache license.  The purpose is to ensure maximum freedom for 
the users of our products and our source code.

As with any legal question, the details need to be worked out with 
support from the legal team.  The specific legal requirements for IP in 
Apache releases is spelled out here:

Note that Apache project websites or products are free to link to 
relevant useful content for their project - including things like user 
guides - which may be under most sorts of licenses.

- Shane

On 9/5/2011 9:02 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Jean Weber<>  wrote:
>> Just trying to be quite clear on something here, since every time the
>> topic turns up, it seems to mutate into a wider discussion without
>> actually answering the question of the relationship of the existing
>> user guides to AOOo.
>> We have established that relicensing the existing OOo user guides
>> (which are licensed CC-BY) to the Apache license is not practical.
>> Does this mean, as Rob has suggested, that these guides *cannot* be
>> part of the "official" documentation for AOOo or only *should not* be
>> part of that doco?
> It is a question of what we can put into a release,e.g., actually
> include in an install image, or source tarball for a release.  Things
> that are part of a release must conform to ASF licensing requirements.
> However, I don't think that it is necessary for "official"
> documentation to be included in a release.  For example, Subversion
> points to an external website for its user manual and calls it "the
> official Subversion documentation online":
> Wearing my IBM hat, the larger issue, one that may not concern
> everyone here but does concern me, is the impact the license choice
> has on our ability to attract corporate-sponsored contributors to an
> effort that is not using a compatible license,  By analogy to the
> project source code,under Apache 2.0, it is very easy for IBM
> developers to contribute patches, etc., to that code.  We contribute
> and know that we improve the product as well as preserve our ability
> to bring that code, with our fixes and other's fixes as well, and
> include that in Symphony releases.  Once we start mixing copyleft
> components into the mix, even documentation components, we make it
> much more difficult for risk-averse corporations to contribute.
> So this is a matter of "help me help you".  If we can move to a
> permissive/compatible license for future documentation work, then I
> can seek contributions of Symphony-related documentations, quick
> starts, as well help with existing doc.  (In fact I've already started
> that discussion internally at IBM, with favorable feedback).  Having a
> compatible license helps align our interests.
>> I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs have not
>> gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen immediately. In the
>> short term (for the next release of the software), we are most likely
>> to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user guides, or no
>> user guides at all.
> Take a  look at the Subversion home page and the link they have on the
> left.  We could do something like that if we wanted.  That is a good
> short-term approach.  It could even work longer term, though I think
> it is a growth-limiting choice.
>> What should I tell the small group that remains from the ODFAuthors
>> team that has been working on the user guides?
> Feel free to share this note.  You could invite them to discuss here
> at ooo-dev, or I'd be happy to answer questions on your list, if you
> prefer.
> Long term, the ideal from my perspective is for ODFAuthors to become
> part of the AOOo project, have their own ooo-doc/ooo-docs/ooo-infodev
> mailing list, agree to move to ALv2 for future contributions, and
> produce docs that because of that license choice can be used freely,
> by AOOo, by LibreOffice, Symphony, even freely translated for
> RedOffice, etc.  Such an arrangement also makes it easier for others
> to contribute as well, for the reasons I mentioned above.
> -Rob
>> --Jean

View raw message