Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of apache@robweir.com designates
 69.89.24.6 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1312682836.2054.62.camel@jean-laptop15>
References: <1312425171.2180.12.camel@jean-laptop15>
	<CAP-ksogjKb2WF5T6PMSsOo23RRjHTYaVvdPPjEaJ7FQObmO1rQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1312528485.2157.58.camel@jean-laptop15>
	<CAP-ksohceyVuiuvT8A1M0Kzh3xz8gwBOLZZHZWsKvP1R3Bwv0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG6wa6E3rZhxwxNWdw1izAueZOJTK9WsUnMhx_aHBH3GE4SfxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksohU-n9JD-AGkae86YKsDeLOmt3axeCRXRNkGCVodkBk2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<002801cc548d$454df2c0$cfe9d840$@acm.org>
	<CAP-ksogjGJ1KZjbsF9Q5+z7h5NA-pYsi8OhpvpoE9-ScWFihxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1312682836.2054.62.camel@jean-laptop15>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 11:27:26 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksoisJMnfm=AxwkNzD9XJESzo2i78_uYiYORWFmBucDN2Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Access to wiki
From: Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 21:05 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I don't think that we can simply say, "If it is
>> not official product doc in a release then it is appropriate to allow
>> anyone to edit it anonymously under whatever license they want".
>
> To me this is a complete strawman. I don't think anyone has suggested or
> is advocating either anonymity or "any license you want" for future
> edits. Every community wiki I've seen has some statement that if you

I'm describing the OOo wiki as it is today.  I can create an account
today with a pseudonym and a fake email address. I can enter a new
wiki page with a copyright and no license for others to use it.

In particular, when I edit a page I am given the following message:

"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it
from a public domain or similar free resource (see OpenOffice.org
Wiki:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without
permission!"

So assigning an open license is entirely optional.  I could upload a
page under by personal copyright and demand payment of 20 chickens or
1 goat for copying the document.  For example:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/General/What_is_a_good_rhyme_about_OpenOffice%3F

I think this is a problem.  Although I could easily accept some
sandbox where random contributions could be made under a variety of
eclectic licenses, we should be concerned with a few things:

1) How do we ensure that contributions are made in a way that is
consistent with the rights we need to even host the contributed
content.

2) How do we prevent core documentation and project pages from being
contaminated by contributions that are incompatibly licensed?  In
other words, how do we preserve the rights of this project and our
users and downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify, translate,
redistribute, etc., contributed content.

> contribute to the wiki in any way, you agree for your work to be under
> the stated license for the wiki (or the specific page), and/or when you
> get an account on the wiki you are required to agree to the license.
> This is a very low barrier to participation, in terms of both time and
> effort required, but it is NOT the same as going through the steps to
> get committer status... unless there is some legal or other reason that
> a simple "I agree to the license" isn't good enough.
>

I'm less concerned with the barriers than the license question.  If we
can first agree on the license appropriate for various classes of
pages then the appropriate level of control needed to ensure that
license will follow naturally.

> --Jean
>
>