Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-37142-apmail-openoffice-dev-archive=openoffice.apache.org@openoffice.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83F9A10B5C
	for <apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Sat,  8 Jun 2013 14:20:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 20043 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2013 14:20:45 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@openoffice.apache.org
Received: (qmail 19675 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2013 14:20:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@openoffice.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@openoffice.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.openoffice.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openoffice.apache.org
Received: (qmail 19659 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jun 2013 14:20:44 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:20:44 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_FRT_BELOW2
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rgb.mldc@gmail.com designates
 209.85.223.177 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.223.177] (HELO mail-ie0-f177.google.com)
 (209.85.223.177)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:20:39 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u16so13144175iet.36
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=+ecsB6L5nJJ7vlwLXRPCqrFIyBKWvQrrgV/F0A3eedo=;
        b=mAeGQSz23EsAUW9yOCB6/EkRaRVAA3UQ0GNn5Is+0kc9U1mKg/evD0ms6Z1Bx6IxqU
         Zls4jVHekL/Kf22IwPmNfoMCJ7A6/DXr93wkt/ThabCC1E4pf61SwSv4RD+O5StOeb8I
         8GbiEvkBXsR8C73vRby2znDsK9trsj6BZjT+xI8m8NWrsdeW/ZE042yX+DaUA+QQw+A4
         P27C4nre0F15aoWZsEo1ngsh1BaWYmp2Wjo4vhbtjY5B5uMHZ2ZNFHYjDQwpkuqaUOqz
         nWNV2c1cv2Xi4wqkzgkL44q4B04+edOLBByuTcoWsMAtPqHCksVDJvKuixUAWKjmJHbi
         sMhA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.3.70 with SMTP id a6mr982736iga.6.1370701218743; Sat, 08
 Jun 2013 07:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.64.194 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 07:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00b501ce6232$6d4bbcd0$47e33670$@acm.org>
References: 
 <CAEtvNKfEc6Xweq6uqr+VYO2jiXCqe3DTDfZRSD3Ccda9OmTfzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<51ACFBE9.301@apache.org>
	<CAEtvNKdYwSrxk9SMVGKs3ZEXg7pRGxEeGFs5Z_N5pAqi+C61vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC=mJXfpN8U3-k9dLkX923NywEyfiUnNz9MXqhqd9fXfZ5Tbag@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK2iWdS3V2Dy3HVe1VUxDNZrByVfuR-emn9iy5DtMgDt+TPZoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksoiB0PE0HHdxNLs9vT=mVDWaAv-_PS85bxKk+3mXx=2osg@mail.gmail.com>
	<008401ce6229$14164cb0$3c42e610$@apache.org>
	<CAP-ksoiAEShRgpQVR76w1uk=Rx8E4E4REnenZSi=gH=ShAfXbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<00b501ce6232$6d4bbcd0$47e33670$@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 16:20:18 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAEtvNKef_j-2wHeT+Jc8vLHSzE3dVE0tvQZ62P_txC4Jb0GadQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
 [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
From: RGB ES <rgb.mldc@gmail.com>
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org, doc@openoffice.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01229f743c8c9b04dea53fae
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--089e01229f743c8c9b04dea53fae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

(top posting, because I'm not answering any particular post)

At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
here is one possible idea:

1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
/Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
outdated
2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
described bellow

Characteristics for the new portal

* Introduction to the project, how to contact the group and participate,
pending tasks lists, etc.
* Links to the new, Apache licensed documentation (user guide, building
guide, etcetera) indicating that it's a work in progress and that new
contributors are welcomed.
* Add a section that points to the legacy page. Something like "Apache
OpenOffice inherited not only the code from former OpenOffice.org project,
but also a huge amount of documentation. Some of those documents are still
valid, some don't, but you can find all of them here".

Once this new structure is in place for the main EN site, propagate it to
other languages will be easier than fixing current PDL licensed pages.

What do you think?

(1) Maybe it's better to first create the new portal on /Documentation-AOO,
when that new page is ready move /Documentation to /Documentation-Legacy,
then move /Documentation-AOO to /Documentation

Regards
Ricardo



2013/6/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

> I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2,
> although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and
> to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF.  (Note that the grant
> to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2
> says.)
>
> My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by
> licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to
> them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my
> iCLA.
>
> Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for
> contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more
> rights than that for any contribution I make.  The current statement about
> treating materials not under the default license still applies and I
> suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration.
>  The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
> [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I prepared my response before I saw this one.
> >
> > There is still need to be careful around this:
> >
> >      However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> >      Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> >      says our contributions are made under ALv2.  This might mean
> >      that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> >      licenses.
> >
> >  1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> >     honored.  How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> >     Conditions.  It should not be automatically assumed possible.
> >
> >  2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> >     The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1).  As committers, we
> >     certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> >     license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> >     can be introduced.
> >
>
> The ICLA says:
>
>  "Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
>    including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
>    is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
>    in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
>    the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
>    "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
>    communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
>    including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
>    lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
>    are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
>    discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
>    is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
>    as "Not a Contribution."
>
> So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
> "documentation of", yes?
>
> -Rob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki
> sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the
> categories at
> >>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content
> under
> >>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
> >>> >
> >>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
> >>> >
> >>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
> >>>
> >
> > We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> > ALv2, not using the prior materials.  And remember, if we want to
> > borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> > as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony.  So all of
> > that can be treated as ALv2.
> >
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > This is overkill.  There is no need to remove PDL pages.  Maybe just
> > move them if they are inconvenient?  But if the content is relevant,
> > why remove?
> >
> > The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are.  We have
> > greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> > we do in the AOO product itself.   We've had no problems at all
> > hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> > the website, wiki, etc.  Nothing has changed in that regard.
> >
> > However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> > existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> > contributions are made under ALv2.  This might mean that going forward
> > that modified content is covered by multiple licenses.  This should
> > not be a problem.
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

--089e01229f743c8c9b04dea53fae--