incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From xia zhao <lilyzh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
Date Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:17:18 GMT
2012/4/6 Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>

>
> 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.
>

Yes, this is one good and easy way to resolve these kinds of license
problems on pages.

>
> Go ahead and make it so.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -Rob
> >>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Pedro.
> >>>>
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message