incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew <>
Subject RE: Terms of Service on Forums
Date Wed, 04 Jul 2012 04:09:15 GMT
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 20:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> @Rob,
> Yes, I am seeing what you are seeing.
> Concerning the ToU for the forums, it is the same as what was previously on the web site.
 While there is a license grant for non-code and other places where no other license is applied,
the license is also to "all Users".
> @Rob, @Drew, @Kay
> I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent with the Oracle
ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as far as I can tell.  That was long
ago and it went nowhere.  The JIRA issue is here: <>.
 Here's the connected issue on our Bugzilla: <>.
 I came to our Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments.  The attachment on the Bugzilla
provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one that could work for the forums,
wikis, and web pages now under ASF custodianship.
> It addresses some of the cases that Rob also mentions.  I stand by my analysis.  You
might want to see how to carve out what you want from that, since it is at least a start and
the places where further customization may be called for are all identified.
>  - Dennis

Hi Dennis,

You did a good job on it then too.

I just took the time to go back and read over the exchange on the legal
JIRA entry and a quick read, again, of your markup to the original TOU

For a TOU link in the website, wiki and forum footer I think it is a
good think to just finish this up and use it.

The website no longer offers account creation so with the new TOU and
the current , I suppose it would
be done (for today :) 

where one does still have a difference between registered and
non-registered users:

- the media wiki already has
 so I suppose that would be done (for today) also.

- the forums, just add a requirement that everything new is ALv2 in (and
it's translations)

At least it seems this simple to me, does it really need to be thought
out a lot further then that?


> Some months ago it was discussed with the ASF Board whether a privacy condition and safe-harbor
setup was desired.  That apparently didn't get anywhere.

View raw message