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: [WEBPAGES][LICENSING] Do we need to put the ALv2 license header on top of our webpages (*.html, *.js *.css) ?
Date Thu, 31 May 2012 23:57:14 GMT
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Hi license experts, all,
>
> I'm just wondering if it's necessary to label our webpages with the ALv2
> header.
>

If you look at our project webpages (those at
incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg) you see that they do all have the
ALv2 stated in a comment in the <head>.

That is because all of those pages are new, written in the podling, by
committers.

For legacy pages at www.openoffice.org, including the wiki, we cannot
assume the legacy content is ALv2.  It is generally under a range of
licenses.  But for new content, added by project committers, checked
in via Subversion, I think it should be declared as ALv2.  That would
agree with the iCLA.

> At least for our JavaScript files I could think of that it is suitable as it
> is kind of code? Or also for CSS files? All webpage files?
>

Anything that can be copyrighted can have the ALv2 license added.
But to be honest, I have not really paid attention to this for new web
pages.  And since the website is not included in our release, none of
this gets audited.   But I can see it would be a "good thing" if we
did this more consistently.

> Would be great to get opinions from our license gurus. :-)
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Marcus

Mime
View raw message