openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Concerns about all PDL website material
Date Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:16:34 GMT
Hi Rob,

I'll bite and reply, but then let's let the world revolve before either of us replies.  :-)

It's getting interesting.

On Sep 7, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <> wrote:
>> Dave,
>> It would seem that these (few, I believe we're told) can be handled the same as unclear
provenance anywhere in the code base and its dependencies.
> I've heard in some other threads the thought that we shouldn't worry
> about such things now, that we'll just sort it out before we graduate,
> but it is safe to move anything/everything onto our servers, because
> we are only a podling.  I think this is untrue, or at least only true
> in a limited way.
> IANAL, but I believe there are two things to consider:  copyright and
> Apache policy.   For the former, the question to ask is: what gives me
> permission to copy?
> At the source code level, since all the code part of the legacy OSS
> project and is all under OSS licenses, it is usually safe to move all
> that into the project.  This is because we comply with all of the
> licenses.   OSS licenses allow copying, right? They may have
> restrictions on publication of apps based on the source, but merely
> copying the source code is fine.  Ditto for documentation, and
> anything else under an similar type of license that allows the
> material to be shared.
> As we know Apache policy brings additional requirements, and will
> require that we review the licenses to ensure they are compatible with
> Apache 2.0, for files that are part of the releases.  This is required
> for a release and for graduating from the Incubator.  So that is
> Apache policy, things that Apache requires beyond merely respecting
> copyright.
> But imagine we found -- hypothetically -- some material in the OOo
> project that was clearly proprietary (not open source),  So, a file
> with commercial headers, a copy of a Microsoft Office ISO, or a file
> where someone has sent a note to the mailing list claiming ownership?
> I don't think we would/could/should just copy such material with the
> argument that we'd fix it later.    This is not a question of Apache
> policy.  This is a question of copyright law.  Unless someone has
> given us permission to copy the material, either explicitly via a
> written license, or through implicit consent, I don't think we can or
> should copy it.  We wouldn't have permission to copy it and review it
> later.

I'll be concrete, and use a real Apache PMC example. In Apache POI when reviewing for a release
we found a GPL data file someone checked in. Fortunately we were able to contact the author
and get him to dual license the file with the appropriate NOTICE added.

Now in our case we may know its there and have it on our list to remove it. We will need to
review everything voting for a release means you have used available tools and convince yourself
that everything is good as best as is humanly possible.

My hesitance was whether I was about to add stuff that was almost completely problematic.

> Implicit consent should cover much of the user submitted material in
> forums, mailing list archives, even the wiki.  If someone voluntarily
> contributed to a collaborative tool, then they implicitly gave consent
> for that material to be stored and displayed via that tool.  Changing
> a host, but keeping the same function, purpose, context, and even URL,
> should also be fine.
> So we might be OK in the case Dave brings up.  Someone uploaded the
> content.  We might not know their name.  But do we have any reason to
> believe that it was not that person's work? Yes, I know that is
> tenuous.  But it is little different than believing that an anonymous
> poster to this list, the support forums or the wiki is not posting 3rd
> party text.  We believe it unless we have some reason to not believe
> it.

SInce I found a list of CA signers I am less worried.

> That is why I raised my concern on the forum contents yesterday.  Drew
> dropped a big turd on our ability to claim implied consent when he
> sent the note claiming ownership of the forum contents.  We can't
> pretend we didn't see the note.  Without that implied consent I don't
> see how we can copy that content.  That is not something we just clean
> up in incubation.  It is not a question of Apache policy. It is a
> question of copyright.

I did not pay attention to that detail as I was away from the ML last week and only had time
to see the headlines / subjects / turbulence.

Enough to know that I wanted to be more sure about the website.


> -Rob
>> The ideal time to clean these up would be when the site is under the
domain name but actually hosted on Apache infrastructure.  That gives complete ability to
make all of the adjustments that are needed, including the numerous minor ones to connect
to the Bugzilla, etc.
>> I'm not clear how migration of the wiki is impacted, unless you mean the proposed
movement of material now on static web pages into the wiki?
>> Exactly where are you finding these PDL license notices?  The first one I found was
on the "Open 3 Installation Guide", a PDF (or ODT) reachable from <>.
 If we *don't touch it* can't it be retained until a permissively-licenses alternative is
needed?  I don't see a reason to be concerned that the authors/contributors did not properly
execute the instructions of the license they have offered.
>>  - Dennis
>> If the notices are always in standalone documents such as the Installation Guide,
I don't see any problem making them available the same way they are now.  They should simply
be left intact.  They can be replaced by non-derivative replacements later, when there are
Apache OOo releases that require different information.  I don't see why we have to hurry.
 Instructions for existing releases remain valuable to keep around.  I suggest preserving
them right where they are, where people expect to find them.
>> When there are releases from Apache OOo, supplementary documents could be offered.
 That would be another way to provide specific information applicable to later releases. 
I see considerable time before these PDL-licensed documents need to be supplanted. They might
be retained for a very long time.
>>  - Dennis
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Fisher []
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 14:33
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Concerns about all PDL website material
>> On Sep 7, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
>>>> I am stuck on a licensing issue with the website and I begin
to doubt if can do much with it other than rehost and correct obvious changes in policy.
>>>> Please look at
>>>> (Whether the PDL is category A for Apache is a follow up, but there is no
point without resolving the following.)
>>>> Specifically look at:
>>>>> Required Notices.
>>>>> You must duplicate the notice in the Appendix in each file of the Documentation.
If it is not possible to put such notice in a particular Documentation file due to its structure,
then You must include such notice in a location (such as a relevant directory) where a reader
would be likely to look for such a notice, for example, via a hyperlink in each file of the
Documentation that takes the reader to a page that describes the origin and ownership of the
Documentation. If You created one or more Modification(s) You may add your name as a Contributor
to the notice described in the Appendix.
>>>>> You must also duplicate this License in any Documentation file (or with
a hyperlink in each file of the Documentation) where You describe recipients' rights or ownership
>>>> and
>>>>> Appendix
>>>>> Public Documentation License Notice
>>>>> The contents of this Documentation are subject to the Public Documentation
License Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may only use this Documentation if you comply with
the terms of this License. A copy of the License is available at __________________[Insert
>>>>> The Original Documentation is _________________. The Initial Writer of
the Original Documentation is ___________ Copyright (C)_________[Insert year(s)]. All Rights
Reserved. (Initial Writer contact(s):________________[Insert hyperlink/alias]).
>>>>> Contributor(s): ______________________________________.
>>>>> Portions created by ______ are Copyright (C)_________[Insert year(s)].
All Rights Reserved. (Contributor contact(s):________________[Insert hyperlink/alias]).
>>>>> NOTE: The text of this Appendix may differ slightly from the text of
the notices in the files of the Original Documentation. You should use the text of this Appendixrather
than the text found in the Original Documentation for Your Modifications.
>>> Does it ever actually require that someone fill in the blanks in the
>>> Appendix?  I see that it requires one to duplicate the notice in the
>>> appendix.  And it permits (but does not require) initial writers and
>>> contributors to add their names to the Appendix.
>> If no one seems to ever provide this information then what can we assume? If there
is no Initial Writer then who holds the copyright? Where's the paperwork? Where does that
leave us? Square one on the website and anything derived from PDL?
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>>> I can find no answer to the question about who are the initial writers and
further contributors are for all most all web pages. There are some that have meta tags, but
that is not following the terms.
>>>> Can anyone provide help here? Do most pages have an "INitial Writer" and
"Contributor" of Oracle Corporation?
>>>> Would we need to see if the archives from prior to the kenai migration have
enough history to determine "Initial Writers" and "Contributors"?
>>>> Where are these appendices?
>>>> I don't see any point in working on the OOo website or transfers to MWiki
or CWiki without clarification.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave

View raw message