incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [odfauthors-discuss] Chapter 1 of the Base Guide ready for publication
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:31:12 GMT
[ODFAuthors subscriber hat on]

My understanding of the current state of LEGAL-96, <>
is that a concrete case is required.  I don't see one here unless the Apache OpenOffice project
proposes to change the terms of use for the Wiki to say that all new contributions must be
under category-A licenses.

If that is the offer (in which case CC-BY, but neither CC-BY-SA nor CC-NC-anything, would
be acceptable with care), the specific conditions that will be satisfied along with use of
CC-BY can be run by legal-discuss@ by addition to LEGAL-96 or whatever.

 1. One condition could be that the attribution requirement be detailed on the inside cover
along with the applicable notices (Copyright, CC-BY, etc.).  As is noticed in LEGAL-96, authors
rarely satisfy that aspect of CC-xx.  [There should always be an unambiguous way to contact
the authors -- copyright holders -- because, as the CC-BY deed states, one can always request
a license under different terms.]

 2. The second condition could be to usefully point out, in the inside cover (or its equivalent)
that there are additional requirements if the document happened to be delivered by technological
means that did not allow the recipient to possess or modify a copy.  (Essentially, such delivery
must make it known how to obtain a technology-unencumbered copy.)  This is the only edge case
that concerns some.  ASF wouldn't be doing that, but ASF wants downstream consumers to know
when there are special conditions and not assume there are none.

These conditions, by the way, are valuable to specify in any CC-xx document, whether or not
acceptable for posting on an ASF site or including in an ASF release.  [Note: An attribution
requirement is very BSD-like and may or may not make the same front matter acceptable in a
high-church-copyleft regime, even though the modern BSD itself is tolerated.  However, editions
prepared for other communities don't have to be under the same license.  Then satisfying (1)
is by a recommendation, not a license condition.]

 3. Overnight, it occurred to me that now there is also a need for ODFAuthors to ensure appropriate
use of the ASF-owned trademarks, including the name and the gull symbol.  I
doubt that there is an issue, but the document will need to provide recognition that trademarked
terms are being used.  (That inside-cover page is not full yet, but don't despair.)  This
generally does not require special permission, although one could go through the ceremony.
 It is important that there be only nominative use with no confusion of the document as endorsed
by or produced by the ASF. (I assume ODFAuthors are completely happy to have that be clear.)
 See <>.  Note: The list of Apache Marks is out-of-date.
 Have no doubt, the name and related symbols are now Apache trademarks.

 - Dennis
   [still auditioning to play a lawyer on cable]

-----Original Message-----
From: []
On Behalf Of Rob Weir
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 05:41
Cc: ODFAuthors;
Subject: Re: [odfauthors-discuss] Chapter 1 of the Base Guide ready for publication

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:
>  1. The wiki has moved under ASF hosting, of course.  All of the previous content is
still there.  See, e.g.,  <>.
>  2. At the bottom of that page, however, is the new Wiki:Copyright Links. It is to this
page: <>.  I
am not sure how this works relative to pages that have an existing license statement for the
page, but this seems to be relevant to your question: "In posting a new contribution, you
are licensing that contribution under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (ALv2)."
>  3. I am cross-posting this message to ooo-dev, since that is apparently where this approach
was arrived at.  Perhaps there is an accommodation that allows Documentation | CC-BY License
(not CC-BY-SA or CC-NC-SA) to still qualify. I would not assume that without obtaining some
sort of explicit agreement.

Maybe start by driving this JIRA issue to closure:

There were some questions on whether we could stream CC-BY 3.0 as category-a.


>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
On Behalf Of Jean Weber
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 22:12
> To: ODFAuthors
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [odfauthors-discuss] Chapter 1 of the Base Guide ready for publication
> That's fabulous news, Dan, and it's an excellent start to the book.
> I'll have a quick flip through the chapter and then put it on the OOo
> wiki... though at this point I'm not sure what's going to happen with
> all the ODFAuthors items on the OOo wiki. I haven't been paying close
> enough attention to know whether a decision has been made about
> whether they can stay there in the Apache OOo incarnation of the wiki.
> Regardless of that detail -- the books will remain available, and the
> Base Guide will be available as it is published.
> Perhaps TJ or Dennis or someone more actively involved at AOOo knows...
> --Jean
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:50, Dan Lewis <> wrote:
>>     Today, I have uploaded 0801BG33-IntroducingBase to the Publish
>> folder. It should be ready for publication and movement to the wiki.
>>     Before doing so, I meticulously compared it with the latest version
>> written for LO. This includes pictures and wording. Paragraph styles
>> were checked for correctness. The section that applies only to OOo was
>> reviewed for possible errors. It only took me all day.
>>     Chapter 1 should be complete for LO and OOo. Now to chapter 2.
>> --Dan
> _______________________________________________
> odfauthors-discuss mailing list
odfauthors-discuss mailing list

View raw message