incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Draft IP Review Plan for OpenOffice
Date Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:10:44 GMT
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> I've consolidated and summarized the various bits of guidance we've
>> received on this list and on legal-discuss, and distill in down into
>> relevant guidance for this project.  We don't need to all be experts
>> in this, but I think everyone contributing code needs to understand
>> the basics of what we may and may not do.  Since I know that not
>> everyone has followed all the threads, I think it is worth bringing
>> this information together in one place, for easy reference.
>>
>> Since this is my interpretation of Apache policy, or even my
>> interpretation of someone else's interpretation,  I'd ask you treat
>> this as a draft for now.  But please do review, ask questions, and
>> point out any information that you believe is incorrect.
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP+Plan+for+Apache+OpenOffice
>
> Thanks. This is a good reference.
>
> Here's an area where we either already know the answer or need clarification.
>
> We've recently had the subject of language packs with various licenses and copyrights
including category X.  If point 5 of Source Release:
>
>> 5. We may also have a build flag that permits the inclusion of weak copyleft, category-b
licensed modules (e.g., MPL).  When this flag is used, it could trigger the automated download
of such modules.  But this should require an explicit, informed choice from the user.  They
need to know that they are enabling the inclusion of non-Apache modules that have a different
license.
>
> If this statement is rewritten for Binary releases to allow informed installation of
a Language Pack whatever it's host, license and copyright might be - as long as on installation
choices were clearly visible and the user explicitly opts in or out.
>

Good point.  The parallelism here had not struck me before.  I just
added it as a #3 under binary releases.  I think, aside from any
license considerations, we should not be automatically downloading
anything without the user's consent.

> This same IP framework could be used for Extensions and Templates - an area in total
limbo with no volunteers active.
>
> These three areas are important to users and users would benefit if the whole "ecosystem"
co-operated.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>
>

Mime
View raw message