Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:40:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton (Commented) (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <1876018987.38908.1320010832359.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <1865112048.19500.1318826053271.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-104) Provide Terms of Use for
 openoffice.org Internet Domain Properties
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13139787#comment-13139787 ] 

Dennis E. Hamilton commented on LEGAL-104:
------------------------------------------

Larry, I just want to high-light some things about outbound and inbound licensing in the current ToU.  I've proposed that these be preserved in the current ToU since it grandfathers everything there already that it seems safe to retain.

OUTBOUND

For outbound, the current ToU (3a) announces that some of the available Materials may have their own licenses or terms of use that take precedence and otherwise, the terms of the current ToU apply.  There is nothing more about outbound licenses here.  It has to be inferred from the inbound license.  There is such material on the wiki and even on the forums (code specimens with copyleft notices, for example.)  The idea here was to recognize the reality of that, don't add to it, and figure out how to remove all the cases that are incompatible in an Apache setting.

The implied default cases are outbound flavors of (4b) and (4c), below. 

INBOUND

There are two default arrangements for inbound licensing that applies automatically (and ignoring the special case of OpenOffice.org Projects, which I hope we can eliminate as a distinction).

For code (4b), "You agree that any source code You contribute will be submitted under, and subject to, ... the Apache License, Version 2.0, which terms can be found at http://www.apache.org/licenses/"  (I note that this is an outbound license statement, not an iCLA, but this is apparently close enough for most folks.)

For other submission (4c), "You hereby grant to the Host and all Users a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and license under Your intellectual property rights to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, and user Your Submissions (in wole or part) and to incorporate them in other works in any form, media, or technology now know or later developed, all subject to the obligation to retain any copyright notices included in Your Submissions."
  [If it waddles like an iCLA and quacks like an iCLA, is it an ICLA?]. 

There are important further details, just as there are surrounding the counterpart terms in an iCLA.  

The 9 native-language forums all use the same English-language ToU that is also used by the English language forums.

The remaining question, for me, is, given that this is the situation with over 200,000 individual contributions from around 70,000 people, what is a nice segue to what Apache requires, especially while not having the site be seen as an apache.org site.  

The forums could last indefinitely on http:// *.openoffice.org.  So could the wiki, for at least the user-written content.  Other parts of the openoffice.org site are moving to Apache (the Bugzilla issues tracker, for one) and others may be divided up between openoffice.org and the podling web site, depending on the user-facing, developer-facing division that makes sense.

QUESTION: Does this provide more context for how we might execute on this with regard to license and ToU issues?
                
> Provide Terms of Use for openoffice.org Internet Domain Properties
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-104
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Dennis E. Hamilton
>
> In August, Drew Jensen submitted information for replacing Terms of Use from OpenOffice.org:
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201108.mbox/%3c1313314247.29323.33.camel@sybil-gnome%3e
> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201108.mbox/%3c1314288884.12962.15.camel@sybil%3e
> [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201108.mbox/%3c1314292969.12962.27.camel@sybil%3e
> This is a renewal of that discussion, offering a specific markup of the existing ToU as a suggested replacement when the same web pages are rehosted on Apache infrastructure.
> PROPOSAL
> It is proposed that a generic (but OpenOffice.org-specific) Terms of Use be employed for all of the current OpenOffice.org web resources that are migrated to Apache hosting and served via the openoffice.org Internet domain and subdomains.  These Terms are not applicable to other web properties that are on apache.org domains, including other web pages for the Apache OpenOffice.org podling development activities separate from the user-focused openoffice.org web properties.  These Terms are proposed to be used for incubation of the rehosted OpenOffice.org as part of the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling incubation.
> The proposal for review and further markup is available as a Bugzilla attachment on issue #118518, <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>.  (The issue is there because attachments are not supported here.)
> The approach is as follows:
>  1. The current Terms of Use, established by Oracle, are used as the basis for the re-hosting Terms of Use.
>  2. The current Terms of Use text is modified, using revision marking, to change the Host to ASF and to simplify the Terms in important respects:
>   2.1 The outgoing Terms for access are essentially the same.
>  2.2 The incoming Terms are simpler in that the only means for contribution of code is via ALv2 (the current default with Oracle) and all other contributions are via a general permissive declaration (the current default with Oracle).  Provision for alternative licenses on submissions to some projects is removed and the project concept is also removed.  (This has nothing to do with projects in the Apache sense.)
>  3. The effect is that the terms under which any previous submissions have been made are honored (and will need to be dealt with via IP clearance, as appropriate) but new submissions are limited to ALv2 for code and generic permissive for anything else.
>  4. Another effect is that the same Terms can be used on all openoffice.org web pages that are rehosted on Apache infrastructure under the original openoffice.org domain.
> REQUESTED ACTION
>  5. Section 3d provides a URL as a place for notification of any copyright infringement complaints (and, I presume, DMCA notices).  An ASF location for such communications or an e-mail address needs to be supplied.  Alternatively, section 3d needs to be removed.
>  6. Renumbered section 4d provides a URL for a Privacy Policy statement.  An ASF location for a Privacy Policy should be inserted or else the section deleted.
>  7. There are a number of notes and annotations in the text and review of those notes and the modifications is requested.  
>  8. Approval of an adjusted text is requested.  It is moderately urgent so that staging of current openoffice.org web properties to Apache custody can be carried out.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

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