Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2814B9278 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 23:57:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 72518 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2012 23:57:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 72452 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2012 23:57:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 72440 invoked by uid 99); 31 May 2012 23:57:15 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 23:57:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-vc0-f175.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username robweir, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 23:57:15 +0000 Received: by vcbfl15 with SMTP id fl15so1094671vcb.6 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 16:57:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.221.12.142 with SMTP id pi14mr417430vcb.56.1338508634448; Thu, 31 May 2012 16:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.190.13 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 16:57:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FC7F97A.5020207@wtnet.de> References: <4FC7F97A.5020207@wtnet.de> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:57:14 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [WEBPAGES][LICENSING] Do we need to put the ALv2 license header on top of our webpages (*.html, *.js *.css) ? From: Rob Weir To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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 . 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