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: Who can help modify the licese page?
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:17:49 GMT
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.

-Rob

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

Mime
View raw message