incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wolf Halton <wolf.hal...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Date Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:20:26 GMT
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> > <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> > > Let's step back a little.
> > >
> > > The markup that I created was designed to morph the Oracle terms of
> service to one that was similar but modified to use of ASF as the HOST and
> eliminate those considerations that do not apply (e.g., the use of distinct
> projects on the web site) under ASF custodianship.
> > >
> > > This approach was so folks could compare with what was already in
> place and produce a harmonious replacement.
> > >
> > > I'm not a lawyer and not prepared to say what is too much or too
> little.  I agree that plain language statements are preferable.  My
> favorite document of this kind is, after all, the Creative Commons
> Attribution Deed 2.0.
> > >
> > > However, there are some essential considerations, it seems to me:
> > >
> > >  1. Privacy should probably be separated as is commonplace on sites of
> this kind.  Privacy should extend beyond what is done to support
> performance of the site and what the monitoring is, to embrace more clearly
> what is done with anything that is considered personally-identifiable
> information.  In particular, the reliance on email addresses being made
> visible as a policy is something that users need to be aware of and why,
> and the need to be able to contact people by the e-mail address provided is
> also a matter of concern.
> >
> > What I have here is the minimum we need, mainly to satisfy Google, via
> > their Terms of Service on the use of Google Analytics.  If you want to
> > add more, feel free.
>
> Howdy Dennis, Rob, etc
>
>
> I agree that it is common to see it as a separate page, but can't say
> that I know of a why, beyond convention.
>
> Using a a single TOU for _everything_ from the main site to the blog it
> would seem easier to move it into the common text, but the one thing I
> don't want to see is a privacy policy listed in two places ;)
>
> I don't have a big preference as to pp in the tou or a link to it.
>
> The text in the privacy section in Rob's proposal looks like a straight
> copy from http://www.openoffice.org/privacy.html with an addition of the
> paragraph to handle the wiki(s)/forums registration and would need then
> to update http://www.openoffice.org/license.html also. (I did not check
> if the stand alone privacy page is linked from anywhere else)
>
>
>
> >
> > >     If there is any kind of promise to be careful with personal data,
> that needs to be made in a way that the ASF can demonstrate diligence about
> and the ASF needs to be aware of the obligation the promise represents.
> >
> > My draft did not make any promise, so I don't see an issue.
> >
> > >     Privacy statements should be dated and back versions should be
> accessible.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, the ToU in general should be dated, etc.
>
> OK
>
> >
> > >  2. The Terms of Use should be clear about what the HOST (the ASF) is
> granting generally to users of the site and what contributors to the site
> are granting to the HOST and all Users, absent any clearly-established
> special cases (licenses, contribution agreements, etc.).  The outgoing
> license is a clear condition of a TOU and not having one for readers of
> general web pages seems erroneious.  The actions that the HOST will take
> without notice and at its own discretion need to be clear also.
> >
> > Obviously I disagree.  IMHO, An explicit outgoing license is not at
> > all necessary in the ToU.  Any public website has an implicit license
> > that users can read it.  That's all we require as a general statement.
> >  For most websites in the world, that is all they have.
> >
> > Beyond that, in a website like ours, with eclectic content under
> > various licenses, in some cases undetermined licenses, we cannot make
> > any simple, general and true statement about the outgoing license.
> >
> > It might be possible to make some extraordinarily complex statement
> > about the outgoing license the website, but I don't see the value of
> > that.  In the end we're publishing software, not a website.
> >
> > It should not necessarily for someone to copy the website and create
> > derivative works any more than it is necessary to copy posts from the
> > mailing list to do the same.
> >
> > >     In this case, I think that the terms of use definitely need to be
> dated and back issues available.
> > >
>
> IMO handle this by placing the license for a page on the page, and would
> not expand the text in the TOU proposal.
>
> So I suppose what that means is I would favor a standard footer for the
> different websites covered, using the current main sites footer as the
> template, over time.
>
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > > <orcmid comments="more in-line below"/>
> > >
> > >  - Dennis
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 06:50
> > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> > > <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> > > [ ... ]
> > >> 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: <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>.  Here's the connected
> issue on our Bugzilla: <
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>.  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.
> > >>
> > >
> > > OK.  I read that over.  IMHO it is still too much.   It is dressed up
> > > in chain mail armour, as befits a big corporation with the risk
> > > profile of a big corporation.  Large corporations are a magnet for
> > > petty lawsuits.   But the circumstances are different with the ASF.
> > > Our main concern is (or should be) clarity and helpfulness to the
> > > reader, not to protect our multi-billion dollar corporation.  I''d
> > > also entirely separate the outgoing license question.  This is not a
> > > ToU question.  That can be covered separate by a "license" link on the
> > > various websites, which might be simple in some case (incubator site
> > > is 100% ALv2) and less so on some legacy sites.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > >   What do you mean by the incubator site?  I disagree about ALv2
> > >  for http://www.openoffice.org since the honoring of ALv2 is more
> > >  restrictive/intrusive than the incoming grant of legacy material
> > >  requires.  Furthermore, patent non-assertions were never collected.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > The incubator site is the one at
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg.  Since that site is 100%
> > from Apache committers, submitted under iCLA, we can state
> > unequivocally that that site is ALv2.  Agreed?
> >
> > > So a minimal approach might look something like this, which could be
> > > applied across all of our websites:
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Consolidated Terms of Use for Apache OpenOffice Websites
> > >
> > > The Apache Software Foundation hosts several websites on behalf of the
> > > Apache OpenOffice project:
> > >
> > > -- under openoffice.org
> > >
> > > - under incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg
> > >
> > > - under cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS
> > >
> > > - under issues.apache.org/ooo/
> > >
> > > -- under blogs.apache.org/ooo/
>
>
> > >
> > > By your use of these websites you acknowledge that you have read these
> > > Terms and agree to them.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > >   I think it should apply to the site being accessed and from which the
> > >   ToU is linked. Also, the "By your use ..." without even a
> click-through
> > >   the claim of reading and agreement is about as corporate as it gets
> > >   and indefensible.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > Defensible against what exactly?  What risk are you concerned about?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Privacy
> > >
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > > Additionally, some of websites  have a user registration systems that
> > > queries you for information such as name, password and email address.
> > >  This information is collected, stored and used in order to provide
> > > you a unique login and to associate that login with your activity on
> > > the website.  We endeavour keep this information private, but it may
> > > be revealed to a competent authority under a lawful order.
> > >
> > > By using this website, you consent to the collection of this data in
> > > the manner and for the purpose described above.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > >   This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people
> > >   register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish
> > >   that.
> > >     This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks
> > >   register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens
> > >   when sending an e-mail somewhere.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration.  But note
> > that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache
> > service, for example CWiki.
> >
> > Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring.
>
> A red herring? I don't think so - why should it only be valid if already
> there. The site references our mailing lists and certainly did, likely
> still does, IMO a comment on the public nature of mailing lists is
> really appropriate here.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 2. User submitted content
> > >
> > > By submitting content to the website, you agree that this content may
> > > be hosted on the website, for the benefit of other website users.
> > > Additionally, you agree that your submissions may be edited, modified,
> > > translated, copied, within the website.  You warrant that you have
> > > sufficient rights to any content that you submit to the website
> > > necessary to grant the above license.
>
> I would add one thing (word) here - we have the right to _remove_ any
> content,  picky I know but I would say it directly.
>
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > >   The "within the website" basically provides no outgoing license to
> > >   the contribution.  The Oracle ToU is not clear about that, but a
> >
> > Correct.  Nothing more than the implicit one.
> >
> > >   counterpart to the incoming license would be very good there.
> > >   I would not allow stipulation of broader licenses.  That makes this
> > >   all impossible and is sort of anti-community, it seems to me.
> > > </orcmid>
> >
> >
> > Why would a broader license be anti-community?  And remember, we can
> > never prevent a user from putting a broader license on a contribution.
> >
> > >
> > > If you wish to offer a broader license, to allow 3rd parties to reuse
> > > your content outside of this website, then you may do so, provided the
> > > license is compatible with the above requirements.  Apache License 2.0
> > > is especially recommended.   Please mark the license prominently in
> > > your contribution.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > >   To emphasize, this is too burdensome and it creates a problem around
> > >   permissible use and who determines what that is.  Having bits and
> >
> > Burdensome for whom?
> >
> > >   pieces under individual license notices makes no sense.
> >
> > We already have that, with openoffice.org website, with our incubator
> > website, and even with other parts of Apache.  Take for example JIRA,
> > where an attachment can be marked as being a contribution or not.
> >
> > If you read the iCLA you see that as a committer you have that ability
> > as well, to indicate in an email, or in subversion, or on the website,
> > whether or not something is a contribution.
> >
> > So we're not starting from some pure world where we can assume a
> > single incoming license.
> >
> > Another proof point for how this works is with the extensions and
> > templates websites.  They manage to have eclectic licenses.  So long
> > as they are each declared, there is no need for a default license or
> > to exclude per-item licenses.
> >
> >
> > >     It might be useful to have the conditions for submission to the
> > >   site be at a place where submissions can happen, and deal more with
> > >   what the outgoing license is in the absence of any notice to the
> > >   contrary.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > If we were interested in enforcing ToU against a user, then yes, we
> > would make this bulletproof and put it in their face at registration
> > time and at the time of their contribution.  But I don't see us having
> > that need.  For us the ToU is more a set of notices that we want the
> > user to be aware, for their benefit and to avoid confusion.  We're
> > trying to be helpful.
> >
> > > 3. Exclusions
> > >
> > > The websites at extensions.openoffice.org and templates.openoffice.org
> > > are not operated by the Apache Software Foundation and are not covered
> > > by this Terms.
> > >
> > > 4. Changes to these Terms
> > >
> > > We may change these Terms from time to time.  When we make substantive
> > > changes we will also make an announcement on the ooo-announce mailing
> > > list.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > >   These definitely need to be versioned and the older versions
> archived.
> > >   I favor having references back to the previous one in a chain
> > >   that anyone can chase.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > That would be fine.
>
> OK
>
> >
> > -Rob
>
> Ok - well, I think that the current TOU page should be updated sooner
> rather then later now - it's been deferred long enough huh? *smile*.
>
> I think it is easier to start with simple and embellish as we see fit.
>
> so how about let's use this page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/website-terms-of-use-draft
> fir a quick white board.
>
> Will start from a copy of Rob's text - add my two edits - and lets just
> work changes if folks have them, if none move it to the website page
> proper on Monday - sound good?
>
> //drew
>
>
+1 Drew


-- 
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Open-Source Software in Libraries - http://FOSS4Lib.org
Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Apache Open Office Developer wolfhalton@apache.org

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