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: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
Date Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:24:37 GMT
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> wrote:
> TJ Frazier wrote:
>>
>> As a long-time volunteer with ODFA (formerly OOA), I can promise that we
>> (AOO) can get documents from them. The cost of this option is (1) a
>> legal review and approval of CC-BY v3; (2) some storage (WG v3.2 is 15.5
>> MB, so call it 100 or 200 MB per version, probably as .odt and .pdf
>> files on the Mwiki. The download volume/bandwidth has been too low to
>> cause any problems, but I have no stats); and (3) a little politeness.
>
>
> Point (1), like all legal reviews, sounds scary, but it could be quite easy:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a says
>   ---
> For the purposes of being a dependency to an Apache product, which licenses
> are considered to be similar in terms to the Apache License 2.0?
> Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache products:
> ...
> Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A)
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
>   ---
> Now, besides the fact that the license is called "CC-A" instead of "CC-BY"
> (but the name and link make it clear it's CC-BY), and the fact that the link
> is to version 2.5 and not version 3.0, Point (1) should already be done.
>
> What's needed is just to open a LEGAL JIRA issue like
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117
> but merely asking whether CC-BY 3.0
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
> can be considered "Category A" and added to / mentioned in
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>

Actually, I did this last August (2011) to help Jean Weber try to get
the doc project started.  You can see the JIRA issue here:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-96

See also the related discussion on the legal-discuss.

The conclusion was that CC-BY-3.0 had an anti-DRM clause that
prevented it from being considered fully category-a.

But that shouldn't prevent us from seeking a narrower permission for
hosting on our website.  But note that hosting might have additional
Infra considerations in terms of bandwidth, etc.  Remember, even if we
have stuff as category-a we're not supposed to be distributing it
outside of a release and outside of approved mirrors.  Pointing users
to large files of any kind on the website will be a problem.

So this leads to questions:

1) Within the AOO project can we do substantive work on material that
is not ALv2?

2) If so, can we include this work in an official release?

3) If not in a release, can we host such materials on Apache-owned websites?

My guess is we would have a lot less trouble if we either started new
doc from scratch under ALv2, or did this work via ODFA, e..g, outside
of Apache.  Mixing the two will be a headache.

-Rob

> Regards,
>   Andrea.

Mime
View raw message