Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01c001cc6db3$6eb12b20$4c138160$@acm.org>
References: <80EF3511-7E3A-4DE5-AC5F-5A5017ABCD16@comcast.net>
	<CAP-ksog5U3KWzS5EZqo=ze7FCb=AcuoqcHgotJMdochSbrjb0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<C9E9B316-2523-4454-ADF0-059A15893E60@comcast.net>
	<01c001cc6db3$6eb12b20$4c138160$@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 20:30:34 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksohSfZvS1An5ApwajkreTndeKBtpNdpDbep+mLhNktXwew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about all PDL website material
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> It would seem that these (few, I believe we're told) can be handled the s=
ame as unclear provenance anywhere in the code base and its dependencies.
>

I've heard in some other threads the thought that we shouldn't worry
about such things now, that we'll just sort it out before we graduate,
but it is safe to move anything/everything onto our servers, because
we are only a podling.  I think this is untrue, or at least only true
in a limited way.

IANAL, but I believe there are two things to consider:  copyright and
Apache policy.   For the former, the question to ask is: what gives me
permission to copy?

At the source code level, since all the code part of the legacy OSS
project and is all under OSS licenses, it is usually safe to move all
that into the project.  This is because we comply with all of the
licenses.   OSS licenses allow copying, right? They may have
restrictions on publication of apps based on the source, but merely
copying the source code is fine.  Ditto for documentation, and
anything else under an similar type of license that allows the
material to be shared.

As we know Apache policy brings additional requirements, and will
require that we review the licenses to ensure they are compatible with
Apache 2.0, for files that are part of the releases.  This is required
for a release and for graduating from the Incubator.  So that is
Apache policy, things that Apache requires beyond merely respecting
copyright.

But imagine we found -- hypothetically -- some material in the OOo
project that was clearly proprietary (not open source),  So, a file
with commercial headers, a copy of a Microsoft Office ISO, or a file
where someone has sent a note to the mailing list claiming ownership?
 I don't think we would/could/should just copy such material with the
argument that we'd fix it later.    This is not a question of Apache
policy.  This is a question of copyright law.  Unless someone has
given us permission to copy the material, either explicitly via a
written license, or through implicit consent, I don't think we can or
should copy it.  We wouldn't have permission to copy it and review it
later.

Implicit consent should cover much of the user submitted material in
forums, mailing list archives, even the wiki.  If someone voluntarily
contributed to a collaborative tool, then they implicitly gave consent
for that material to be stored and displayed via that tool.  Changing
a host, but keeping the same function, purpose, context, and even URL,
should also be fine.

So we might be OK in the case Dave brings up.  Someone uploaded the
content.  We might not know their name.  But do we have any reason to
believe that it was not that person's work? Yes, I know that is
tenuous.  But it is little different than believing that an anonymous
poster to this list, the support forums or the wiki is not posting 3rd
party text.  We believe it unless we have some reason to not believe
it.

That is why I raised my concern on the forum contents yesterday.  Drew
dropped a big turd on our ability to claim implied consent when he
sent the note claiming ownership of the forum contents.  We can't
pretend we didn't see the note.  Without that implied consent I don't
see how we can copy that content.  That is not something we just clean
up in incubation.  It is not a question of Apache policy. It is a
question of copyright.

-Rob

> The ideal time to clean these up would be when the site is under the Open=
Office.org domain name but actually hosted on Apache infrastructure. =C2=A0=
That gives complete ability to make all of the adjustments that are needed,=
 including the numerous minor ones to connect to the Bugzilla, etc.
>
> I'm not clear how migration of the wiki is impacted, unless you mean the =
proposed movement of material now on static web pages into the wiki?
>
> Exactly where are you finding these PDL license notices? =C2=A0The first =
one I found was on the "Open Office.org 3 Installation Guide", a PDF (or OD=
T) reachable from <http://download.openoffice.org/common/instructions.html>=
. =C2=A0If we *don't touch it* can't it be retained until a permissively-li=
censes alternative is needed? =C2=A0I don't see a reason to be concerned th=
at the authors/contributors did not properly execute the instructions of th=
e license they have offered.
>
> =C2=A0- Dennis
>
> RELAXED RETAIN, SUPPLEMENT, AND REPLACE SCENARIO
>
> If the notices are always in standalone documents such as the Installatio=
n Guide, I don't see any problem making them available the same way they ar=
e now. =C2=A0They should simply be left intact. =C2=A0They can be replaced =
by non-derivative replacements later, when there are Apache OOo releases th=
at require different information. =C2=A0I don't see why we have to hurry. =
=C2=A0Instructions for existing releases remain valuable to keep around. =
=C2=A0I suggest preserving them right where they are, where people expect t=
o find them.
>
> When there are releases from Apache OOo, supplementary documents could be=
 offered. =C2=A0That would be another way to provide specific information a=
pplicable to later releases. =C2=A0I see considerable time before these PDL=
-licensed documents need to be supplanted. They might be retained for a ver=
y long time.
>
>
> =C2=A0- Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 14:33
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerns about all PDL website material
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrot=
e:
>>> I am stuck on a licensing issue with the OpenOffice.org website and I b=
egin to doubt if can do much with it other than rehost and correct obvious =
changes in policy.
>>>
>>> Please look at http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>>>
>>> (Whether the PDL is category A for Apache is a follow up, but there is =
no point without resolving the following.)
>>>
>>> Specifically look at:
>>>
>>>> Required Notices.
>>>> You must duplicate the notice in the Appendix in each file of the Docu=
mentation. If it is not possible to put such notice in a particular Documen=
tation file due to its structure, then You must include such notice in a lo=
cation (such as a relevant directory) where a reader would be likely to loo=
k for such a notice, for example, via a hyperlink in each file of the Docum=
entation that takes the reader to a page that describes the origin and owne=
rship of the Documentation. If You created one or more Modification(s) You =
may add your name as a Contributor to the notice described in the Appendix.
>>>> You must also duplicate this License in any Documentation file (or wit=
h a hyperlink in each file of the Documentation) where You describe recipie=
nts' rights or ownership rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>> Appendix
>>>> Public Documentation License Notice
>>>> The contents of this Documentation are subject to the Public Documenta=
tion License Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may only use this Documentati=
on if you comply with the terms of this License. A copy of the License is a=
vailable at __________________[Insert hyperlink].
>>>> The Original Documentation is _________________. The Initial Writer of=
 the Original Documentation is ___________ Copyright (C)_________[Insert ye=
ar(s)]. All Rights Reserved. (Initial Writer contact(s):________________[In=
sert hyperlink/alias]).
>>>> Contributor(s): ______________________________________.
>>>> Portions created by ______ are Copyright (C)_________[Insert year(s)].=
 All Rights Reserved. (Contributor contact(s):________________[Insert hyper=
link/alias]).
>>>> NOTE: The text of this Appendix may differ slightly from the text of t=
he notices in the files of the Original Documentation. You should use the t=
ext of this Appendixrather than the text found in the Original Documentatio=
n for Your Modifications.
>>>
>>
>> Does it ever actually require that someone fill in the blanks in the
>> Appendix? =C2=A0I see that it requires one to duplicate the notice in th=
e
>> appendix. =C2=A0And it permits (but does not require) initial writers an=
d
>> contributors to add their names to the Appendix.
>
> If no one seems to ever provide this information then what can we assume?=
 If there is no Initial Writer then who holds the copyright? Where's the pa=
perwork? Where does that leave us? Square one on the website and anything d=
erived from PDL?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>>> I can find no answer to the question about who are the initial writers =
and further contributors are for all most all web pages. There are some tha=
t have meta tags, but that is not following the terms.
>>>
>>> Can anyone provide help here? Do most pages have an "INitial Writer" an=
d "Contributor" of Oracle Corporation?
>>>
>>> Would we need to see if the archives from prior to the kenai migration =
have enough history to determine "Initial Writers" and "Contributors"?
>>>
>>> Where are these appendices?
>>>
>>> I don't see any point in working on the OOo website or transfers to MWi=
ki or CWiki without clarification.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>
>