www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mohammad Noureldin <nour.moham...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Using content from StackOverflow
Date Fri, 23 May 2014 19:19:31 GMT
I know that the mailing list services had problems, but it is solved by now

So I am still looking forward any feedback
On May 16, 2014 7:19 PM, "Mohammad Noureldin" <nour.mohammad@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Andrea
>
>    Again thanks a lot for your feedback
>
> On May 14, 2014 9:34 AM, "Andrea Pehiscetti" <pescetti@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/05/2014 Mohammad Noureldin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Mohammad Noureldin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Qn: Can an Apache project use content from non ASF sources (forums,
> >>>> mailing lists, etc...)?"
> >>>
> >>> Both "use" and "content" are quite vague. OpenOffice, for example,
> still
> >>> hosts on the site and wiki old documentation that is not under ALv2. We
> >>> don't include it in releases, of course
> >>
> >> Under which license that documentation is ? If you look at [0], you
> >> will see at the footer "Copyright © 2011-2012 The Apache Software
> >> Foundation Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0" ...
> >> [0] http://openoffice.apache.org/
> >
> >
> > That site is new. Everything there is under ALv2. I was referring to
> legacy content on https://wiki.openoffice.org/ and some pre-Apache
> portions of the users portal http://www.openoffice.org/ ; licenses
> include CC-BY 3, see
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
> >
>
> In case of wiki.openoffice.org it is mentioned that the content is
> licensed under the ALv2 unless otherwise
>
> For the user guide website it points to (
> http://www.openoffice.org/license.html) which is not as restrictive as
> the SO one as stated in my earlier email
> >
> >> Maybe I widened the scope more than we want ? Maybe, but I want to
> >> address it in a way that is not related to a certain source of content
> >> or certain license, otherwise we will end adding a different Q&A for
> >> each of these sources
> >
> >
> > While not being a lawyer at all, I still believe that it is too broad to
> adopt the same policy for the case of:
> > - Content that is released (as part of the officially releases sources)
> > - Content that is somewhere in SVN (like, test documents allowing free
> redistribution but not licensed under ALv2)
> > - Content that is provided as answers to mailing list messages (that may
> link to, or quote, an external site)
> >
> > But I may be totally wrong too! I can't bring any further contributions
> to this discussion other than the "real life" case I described.
> >
>
> True me neither, that's why I would like others to *please* add more
> feedback if possible or just ask us to stop this discussion if it does not
> make any sense and why
>
> NOTE: it is mentioned that I'm case help needed to ask the Legal IPMC and
> we are doing so but we still didn't get to any conclusion for this
> discussion. Please help.
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Andrea.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>

Mime
View raw message