incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:48:11 GMT

On Apr 6, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Lily;
>>>> 
>>>> --- Gio 5/4/12, xia zhao <lilyzhao8@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>>> Data: Giovedì 5 Aprile 2012, 22:03
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the lincese page, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html. It still
>>>>> saying "developers could use the Creative Commons
>>>>> Attribution License
>>>>> ("Attribution-NoDerivs
>>>>> 2.5"<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/>).
>>>>> SUN/Oracle only accepted work under this license that was
>>>>> non-editable and
>>>>> for which there was no editable version that could be
>>>>> contributed to the
>>>>> project.".
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If you notice carefully, the phrase is in past tense and
>>>> applies only to legacy releases.
>>>> 
>>>>> Who can help modify this page?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think a review to the whole page is desirable for
>>>> the new release. Any committer can change it using
>>>> the Apache CMS bookmarklet or SVN. The big question
>>>> is what to write in there.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is there a reason why the page should mix together copyright
>>> statements on the website as well as license statements on the
>>> releases?  Especially since this link appears on every page, it is
>>> confusing.
>> 
>> Yes, we are still distributing the legacy code.
>> 
> 
> That is not a very good reason, IMHO.  I think we should put the
> legacy license prominent on the legacy download page.  But I don't see
> why it should be in the footer of *every* openoffice.org web page.
> 
>>> 
>>> If it were up to me I'd have the site copyright statement only here,
>>> and put the release license link on the download pages only.
>> 
>> The download page links to the license page. Maybe we need two license pages.
>> 
> 
> At least three, I think:
> 
> 1) legacy LPGL for where we offer downloads of the legacy release
> 
> 2) ALv2 for where we offer downloads of the new Apache releases
> 
> 3) A site copyright/license page on all pages, explaining the
> copyright on the website contents itself.
> 
> But I think it makes zero sense to have page that are not dealing with
> releases at all have a link that talks confusingly about the license
> on "releases".  Remember, through the magic of Google, a user could
> end up entering any random page on the website, to find the answer to
> their questions.

+1.

Make links in the appropriate places.

(1) is linked from downloads.
(2) is linked from where?
(3) is linked from template/footer.html - The site license should have the current /license.html
url.

- Split the current page in two new pages - legacy_license.html and package_license.html
- Edit license.html into the site license file.

Go ahead and make it so.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Pedro.
>>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message