www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orc...@apache.org>
Subject RE: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-96) Categorise Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:15:02 GMT
PS: What we are talking about are User Guides that have been made available on OpenOffice.org.
 This is reported to be the typical notice on the posted chapters:

  "This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
  below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
  the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
  version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
  (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."

I am following up to find out exactly what those documents are, their formats, definitely
where the contributors are listed, and exactly how tightly we might need to embrace [extend
...] them under Apache OOo.  It is too hypothetical at the moment.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 13:04
To: 'legal-discuss@apache.org'
Subject: RE: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-96) Categorise Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported

Concurring that there is no evident consensus on Category A for CC-by, ...

In the case of Apache OOo, the question comes up because the OpenOffice.org site has some
documentation (of the end-user or other-contributor kind, I believe) that is dual-licensed
CC-by 3.0 (or later) and GPL.  Not sure why GPL for documentation.

So this is not about code.  And this could continue to be held on an OpenOffice.org location
where it is clear that it is not an Apache deliverable.

I think the question is about bringing that documentation (or derivatives) of it into a release
or something that qualifies as an Apache deliverable.

Shane refers to these as previously-licensed docs.  It seems to me that third-party rules
apply and there may be copyright notices to content with as well. 

We should probably go identify exactly what these documents are and even whether we have them
in editable forms.

I'll request that back on the ooo-dev list.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: sa3ruby@gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:38
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-96) Categorise Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> On 08/04/11 18:58, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> And the "no sublicensing" is also tricky.
> AIUI relatively few open source licenses explicitly allow sublicensing
> but I'm not sure what stating "no sublicensing" is intended to do...

Can we get this discussion back to concrete terms?

I don't sense that we are near consensus on a blanket "allow this
license as category A under any circumstances".

The next question is how strong is the need?

If there is a strong need, and the problems are only hypothetical
and/or not applicable (e.g., concerns about embedded systems may not
directly apply to a product like OpenOffice.org, and perhaps could be
addressed via a notice).

If there is not a strong need -- and my read is that some of the
concerns are coming from those within OO.o (excellent!) and I've heard
(but don't have any direct knowledge of) that IBM will be providing a
codebase that people can cherry-pick from which addresses some of
these issues (perhaps this one?  perhaps not?  I don't know but
perhaps somebody on ooo-dev can find out?) -- then there really isn't
any pressing need to explore this issue further at this time.

So: what is the module in question, and how difficult would it be to replace?

> Robert

- Sam Ruby

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message