You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2012/07/04 01:44:59 UTC
Terms of Service on Forums
Can someone take ownership of this issue?
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
this remedied.
Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
user/non-committer contributions.
-Rob
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> This page is blank and now redirects to /license.html
>
Thanks!
-Rob
> If someone cares to change it go ahead.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Oct 14, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> A quick reminder. The support forums are still pointing to Oracle's
>> Policies and Terms of Use document:
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>>
>> This is inappropriate, inaccurate, confusing and quite possibly
>> improper. It is also embarrassing for our project to have a Terms of
>> Use page that starts:
>>
>> "1. INTRODUCTION. This Site and its contents are made available by
>> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
>> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")."
>>
>> (Nothing against Oracle, of course, but it is embarrassing that this
>> page is still here 8 months after I first reported it,)
>>
>> I've made several good faith attempts at proposing a replacement over
>> the past year, but all were lost in bottomless bikeshedding. I'm not
>> going to waste my time on this yet another time. Hopefully someone on
>> the PMC feels empowered to take my past proposal and run with it, or
>> create an alternative and resolve this issue.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>>>
>>> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>>>
>>> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>>>
>>> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>>>
>>> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
>>> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
>>> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>>>
>>> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
>>> this remedied.
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
>>> user/non-committer contributions.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
This page is blank and now redirects to /license.html
If someone cares to change it go ahead.
Regards,
Dave
On Oct 14, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> A quick reminder. The support forums are still pointing to Oracle's
> Policies and Terms of Use document:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>
> This is inappropriate, inaccurate, confusing and quite possibly
> improper. It is also embarrassing for our project to have a Terms of
> Use page that starts:
>
> "1. INTRODUCTION. This Site and its contents are made available by
> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")."
>
> (Nothing against Oracle, of course, but it is embarrassing that this
> page is still here 8 months after I first reported it,)
>
> I've made several good faith attempts at proposing a replacement over
> the past year, but all were lost in bottomless bikeshedding. I'm not
> going to waste my time on this yet another time. Hopefully someone on
> the PMC feels empowered to take my past proposal and run with it, or
> create an alternative and resolve this issue.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>>
>> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>>
>> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>>
>> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>>
>> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
>> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
>> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>>
>> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
>> this remedied.
>>
>> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
>> user/non-committer contributions.
>>
>>
>> -Rob
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
A quick reminder. The support forums are still pointing to Oracle's
Policies and Terms of Use document:
http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
This is inappropriate, inaccurate, confusing and quite possibly
improper. It is also embarrassing for our project to have a Terms of
Use page that starts:
"1. INTRODUCTION. This Site and its contents are made available by
Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")."
(Nothing against Oracle, of course, but it is embarrassing that this
page is still here 8 months after I first reported it,)
I've made several good faith attempts at proposing a replacement over
the past year, but all were lost in bottomless bikeshedding. I'm not
going to waste my time on this yet another time. Hopefully someone on
the PMC feels empowered to take my past proposal and run with it, or
create an alternative and resolve this issue.
Regards,
-Rob
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>
> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>
> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>
> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>
> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>
> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
> this remedied.
>
> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
> user/non-committer contributions.
>
>
> -Rob
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>>
>> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>>
>> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>>
>> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>>
>> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
>> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
>> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>>
>> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
>> this remedied.
>>
>> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
>> user/non-committer contributions.
>>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> Yes, when Dave pointed this out the other day, I saw this as well.
>
> We need to correct this page at least, and it would make perfect sense to
> me to use these terms for the wiki, the forums, and our main web site,
> www.openoffice.org, as well.
>
> I brought this up a few days ago but no reply to that.
>
> Re the web site -- these terms seemed to be adequate for Sun and for Oracle
> so why not us? But, it would probably be best to continue the web site
> discussion on the previous thread --
> [DISCUSSION] (Re)use of Website Content
>
I'd keep the reuse issue separate. We're here to publish software.
Creating a reusable website is nice, but not our primary purpose. We
just need a basic terms of service that covers things like:
1) Privacy policy, including required notices for our use of Google Analytics
2) Statement that the user agrees to post only content that they own
3) Statement that user agrees to have their content hosted on the website
We can go beyond that in terms of an outgoing license if we really
wanted to, but it is not strictly necessary. And the fact we haven't
managed to do that in over a year makes me think that keeping it
basic, but accurate, is the most direct approach.
Suggested quick fix:
1) Remove the Oracle terms from the Forum
2) Make the current link in the forum footer point to this page:
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ucp.php?mode=terms
3) Make this page also include the content from the privacy policy
here: http://www.openoffice.org/privacy.html (or link to it)
4) Ensure that the other NL forums either point to the same terms, or
an accurate translation.
5) (Future) If someone wants to have an outgoing license then they
should make a proposal and start a discussion on the forums about
that.
My two cents.
-Rob
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "I would rather have a donkey that takes me there
> than a horse that will not fare."
> -- Portuguese proverb
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>
> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>
> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>
> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>
> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>
> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
> this remedied.
>
> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
> user/non-committer contributions.
>
>
> -Rob
>
Yes, when Dave pointed this out the other day, I saw this as well.
We need to correct this page at least, and it would make perfect sense to
me to use these terms for the wiki, the forums, and our main web site,
www.openoffice.org, as well.
I brought this up a few days ago but no reply to that.
Re the web site -- these terms seemed to be adequate for Sun and for Oracle
so why not us? But, it would probably be best to continue the web site
discussion on the previous thread --
[DISCUSSION] (Re)use of Website Content
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"I would rather have a donkey that takes me there
than a horse that will not fare."
-- Portuguese proverb
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:09 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 20:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> @Rob,
>>
>> Yes, I am seeing what you are seeing.
>>
>> Concerning the ToU for the forums, it is the same as what was previously on the web site. While there is a license grant for non-code and other places where no other license is applied, the license is also to "all Users".
>>
>> @Rob, @Drew, @Kay
>>
>> I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went nowhere. The JIRA issue is here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>. Here's the connected issue on our Bugzilla: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>. I came to our Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF custodianship.
>>
>> It addresses some of the cases that Rob also mentions. I stand by my analysis. You might want to see how to carve out what you want from that, since it is at least a start and the places where further customization may be called for are all identified.
>>
>> - Dennis
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> You did a good job on it then too.
>
> I just took the time to go back and read over the exchange on the legal
> JIRA entry and a quick read, again, of your markup to the original TOU
> text.
>
> For a TOU link in the website, wiki and forum footer I think it is a
> good think to just finish this up and use it.
>
> The website no longer offers account creation so with the new TOU and
> the current http://www.openoffice.org/privacy.html , I suppose it would
> be done (for today :)
>
> where one does still have a difference between registered and
> non-registered users:
>
> - the media wiki already has
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights
> so I suppose that would be done (for today) also.
>
> - the forums, just add a requirement that everything new is ALv2 in
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ucp.php?mode=terms (and
> it's translations)
>
> At least it seems this simple to me, does it really need to be thought
> out a lot further then that?
>
If someone has a specific proposal, can they stick it on the Cwiki as
a draft and we can work on it a bit?
"As simple as possible, but no simpler".
-Rob
> //drew
>
>>
>> Some months ago it was discussed with the ASF Board whether a privacy condition and safe-harbor setup was desired. That apparently didn't get anywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
RE: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 20:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> @Rob,
>
> Yes, I am seeing what you are seeing.
>
> Concerning the ToU for the forums, it is the same as what was previously on the web site. While there is a license grant for non-code and other places where no other license is applied, the license is also to "all Users".
>
> @Rob, @Drew, @Kay
>
> I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went nowhere. The JIRA issue is here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>. Here's the connected issue on our Bugzilla: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>. I came to our Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF custodianship.
>
> It addresses some of the cases that Rob also mentions. I stand by my analysis. You might want to see how to carve out what you want from that, since it is at least a start and the places where further customization may be called for are all identified.
>
> - Dennis
Hi Dennis,
You did a good job on it then too.
I just took the time to go back and read over the exchange on the legal
JIRA entry and a quick read, again, of your markup to the original TOU
text.
For a TOU link in the website, wiki and forum footer I think it is a
good think to just finish this up and use it.
The website no longer offers account creation so with the new TOU and
the current http://www.openoffice.org/privacy.html , I suppose it would
be done (for today :)
where one does still have a difference between registered and
non-registered users:
- the media wiki already has
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights
so I suppose that would be done (for today) also.
- the forums, just add a requirement that everything new is ALv2 in
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ucp.php?mode=terms (and
it's translations)
At least it seems this simple to me, does it really need to be thought
out a lot further then that?
//drew
>
> Some months ago it was discussed with the ASF Board whether a privacy condition and safe-harbor setup was desired. That apparently didn't get anywhere.
>
>
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> > <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> > > Let's step back a little.
> > >
> > > The markup that I created was designed to morph the Oracle terms of
> service to one that was similar but modified to use of ASF as the HOST and
> eliminate those considerations that do not apply (e.g., the use of distinct
> projects on the web site) under ASF custodianship.
> > >
> > > This approach was so folks could compare with what was already in
> place and produce a harmonious replacement.
> > >
> > > I'm not a lawyer and not prepared to say what is too much or too
> little. I agree that plain language statements are preferable. My
> favorite document of this kind is, after all, the Creative Commons
> Attribution Deed 2.0.
> > >
> > > However, there are some essential considerations, it seems to me:
> > >
> > > 1. Privacy should probably be separated as is commonplace on sites of
> this kind. Privacy should extend beyond what is done to support
> performance of the site and what the monitoring is, to embrace more clearly
> what is done with anything that is considered personally-identifiable
> information. In particular, the reliance on email addresses being made
> visible as a policy is something that users need to be aware of and why,
> and the need to be able to contact people by the e-mail address provided is
> also a matter of concern.
> >
> > What I have here is the minimum we need, mainly to satisfy Google, via
> > their Terms of Service on the use of Google Analytics. If you want to
> > add more, feel free.
>
> Howdy Dennis, Rob, etc
>
>
> I agree that it is common to see it as a separate page, but can't say
> that I know of a why, beyond convention.
>
> Using a a single TOU for _everything_ from the main site to the blog it
> would seem easier to move it into the common text, but the one thing I
> don't want to see is a privacy policy listed in two places ;)
>
> I don't have a big preference as to pp in the tou or a link to it.
>
> The text in the privacy section in Rob's proposal looks like a straight
> copy from http://www.openoffice.org/privacy.html with an addition of the
> paragraph to handle the wiki(s)/forums registration and would need then
> to update http://www.openoffice.org/license.html also. (I did not check
> if the stand alone privacy page is linked from anywhere else)
>
>
>
> >
> > > If there is any kind of promise to be careful with personal data,
> that needs to be made in a way that the ASF can demonstrate diligence about
> and the ASF needs to be aware of the obligation the promise represents.
> >
> > My draft did not make any promise, so I don't see an issue.
> >
> > > Privacy statements should be dated and back versions should be
> accessible.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, the ToU in general should be dated, etc.
>
> OK
>
> >
> > > 2. The Terms of Use should be clear about what the HOST (the ASF) is
> granting generally to users of the site and what contributors to the site
> are granting to the HOST and all Users, absent any clearly-established
> special cases (licenses, contribution agreements, etc.). The outgoing
> license is a clear condition of a TOU and not having one for readers of
> general web pages seems erroneious. The actions that the HOST will take
> without notice and at its own discretion need to be clear also.
> >
> > Obviously I disagree. IMHO, An explicit outgoing license is not at
> > all necessary in the ToU. Any public website has an implicit license
> > that users can read it. That's all we require as a general statement.
> > For most websites in the world, that is all they have.
> >
> > Beyond that, in a website like ours, with eclectic content under
> > various licenses, in some cases undetermined licenses, we cannot make
> > any simple, general and true statement about the outgoing license.
> >
> > It might be possible to make some extraordinarily complex statement
> > about the outgoing license the website, but I don't see the value of
> > that. In the end we're publishing software, not a website.
> >
> > It should not necessarily for someone to copy the website and create
> > derivative works any more than it is necessary to copy posts from the
> > mailing list to do the same.
> >
> > > In this case, I think that the terms of use definitely need to be
> dated and back issues available.
> > >
>
> IMO handle this by placing the license for a page on the page, and would
> not expand the text in the TOU proposal.
>
> So I suppose what that means is I would favor a standard footer for the
> different websites covered, using the current main sites footer as the
> template, over time.
>
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > > <orcmid comments="more in-line below"/>
> > >
> > > - Dennis
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 06:50
> > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> > > <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> > > [ ... ]
> > >> I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was
> consistent with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this
> problem worse, as far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went
> nowhere. The JIRA issue is here: <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>. Here's the connected
> issue on our Bugzilla: <
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>. I came to our
> Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the
> Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one
> that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF
> custodianship.
> > >>
> > >
> > > OK. I read that over. IMHO it is still too much. It is dressed up
> > > in chain mail armour, as befits a big corporation with the risk
> > > profile of a big corporation. Large corporations are a magnet for
> > > petty lawsuits. But the circumstances are different with the ASF.
> > > Our main concern is (or should be) clarity and helpfulness to the
> > > reader, not to protect our multi-billion dollar corporation. I''d
> > > also entirely separate the outgoing license question. This is not a
> > > ToU question. That can be covered separate by a "license" link on the
> > > various websites, which might be simple in some case (incubator site
> > > is 100% ALv2) and less so on some legacy sites.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > > What do you mean by the incubator site? I disagree about ALv2
> > > for http://www.openoffice.org since the honoring of ALv2 is more
> > > restrictive/intrusive than the incoming grant of legacy material
> > > requires. Furthermore, patent non-assertions were never collected.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > The incubator site is the one at
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg. Since that site is 100%
> > from Apache committers, submitted under iCLA, we can state
> > unequivocally that that site is ALv2. Agreed?
> >
> > > So a minimal approach might look something like this, which could be
> > > applied across all of our websites:
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Consolidated Terms of Use for Apache OpenOffice Websites
> > >
> > > The Apache Software Foundation hosts several websites on behalf of the
> > > Apache OpenOffice project:
> > >
> > > -- under openoffice.org
> > >
> > > - under incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg
> > >
> > > - under cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS
> > >
> > > - under issues.apache.org/ooo/
> > >
> > > -- under blogs.apache.org/ooo/
>
>
> > >
> > > By your use of these websites you acknowledge that you have read these
> > > Terms and agree to them.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > > I think it should apply to the site being accessed and from which the
> > > ToU is linked. Also, the "By your use ..." without even a
> click-through
> > > the claim of reading and agreement is about as corporate as it gets
> > > and indefensible.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > Defensible against what exactly? What risk are you concerned about?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Privacy
> > >
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > > Additionally, some of websites have a user registration systems that
> > > queries you for information such as name, password and email address.
> > > This information is collected, stored and used in order to provide
> > > you a unique login and to associate that login with your activity on
> > > the website. We endeavour keep this information private, but it may
> > > be revealed to a competent authority under a lawful order.
> > >
> > > By using this website, you consent to the collection of this data in
> > > the manner and for the purpose described above.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > > This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people
> > > register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish
> > > that.
> > > This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks
> > > register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens
> > > when sending an e-mail somewhere.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration. But note
> > that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache
> > service, for example CWiki.
> >
> > Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring.
>
> A red herring? I don't think so - why should it only be valid if already
> there. The site references our mailing lists and certainly did, likely
> still does, IMO a comment on the public nature of mailing lists is
> really appropriate here.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 2. User submitted content
> > >
> > > By submitting content to the website, you agree that this content may
> > > be hosted on the website, for the benefit of other website users.
> > > Additionally, you agree that your submissions may be edited, modified,
> > > translated, copied, within the website. You warrant that you have
> > > sufficient rights to any content that you submit to the website
> > > necessary to grant the above license.
>
> I would add one thing (word) here - we have the right to _remove_ any
> content, picky I know but I would say it directly.
>
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > > The "within the website" basically provides no outgoing license to
> > > the contribution. The Oracle ToU is not clear about that, but a
> >
> > Correct. Nothing more than the implicit one.
> >
> > > counterpart to the incoming license would be very good there.
> > > I would not allow stipulation of broader licenses. That makes this
> > > all impossible and is sort of anti-community, it seems to me.
> > > </orcmid>
> >
> >
> > Why would a broader license be anti-community? And remember, we can
> > never prevent a user from putting a broader license on a contribution.
> >
> > >
> > > If you wish to offer a broader license, to allow 3rd parties to reuse
> > > your content outside of this website, then you may do so, provided the
> > > license is compatible with the above requirements. Apache License 2.0
> > > is especially recommended. Please mark the license prominently in
> > > your contribution.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > > To emphasize, this is too burdensome and it creates a problem around
> > > permissible use and who determines what that is. Having bits and
> >
> > Burdensome for whom?
> >
> > > pieces under individual license notices makes no sense.
> >
> > We already have that, with openoffice.org website, with our incubator
> > website, and even with other parts of Apache. Take for example JIRA,
> > where an attachment can be marked as being a contribution or not.
> >
> > If you read the iCLA you see that as a committer you have that ability
> > as well, to indicate in an email, or in subversion, or on the website,
> > whether or not something is a contribution.
> >
> > So we're not starting from some pure world where we can assume a
> > single incoming license.
> >
> > Another proof point for how this works is with the extensions and
> > templates websites. They manage to have eclectic licenses. So long
> > as they are each declared, there is no need for a default license or
> > to exclude per-item licenses.
> >
> >
> > > It might be useful to have the conditions for submission to the
> > > site be at a place where submissions can happen, and deal more with
> > > what the outgoing license is in the absence of any notice to the
> > > contrary.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > If we were interested in enforcing ToU against a user, then yes, we
> > would make this bulletproof and put it in their face at registration
> > time and at the time of their contribution. But I don't see us having
> > that need. For us the ToU is more a set of notices that we want the
> > user to be aware, for their benefit and to avoid confusion. We're
> > trying to be helpful.
> >
> > > 3. Exclusions
> > >
> > > The websites at extensions.openoffice.org and templates.openoffice.org
> > > are not operated by the Apache Software Foundation and are not covered
> > > by this Terms.
> > >
> > > 4. Changes to these Terms
> > >
> > > We may change these Terms from time to time. When we make substantive
> > > changes we will also make an announcement on the ooo-announce mailing
> > > list.
> > >
> > > <orcmid>
> > > These definitely need to be versioned and the older versions
> archived.
> > > I favor having references back to the previous one in a chain
> > > that anyone can chase.
> > > </orcmid>
> > >
> >
> > That would be fine.
>
> OK
>
> >
> > -Rob
>
> Ok - well, I think that the current TOU page should be updated sooner
> rather then later now - it's been deferred long enough huh? *smile*.
>
> I think it is easier to start with simple and embellish as we see fit.
>
> so how about let's use this page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/website-terms-of-use-draft
> fir a quick white board.
>
> Will start from a copy of Rob's text - add my two edits - and lets just
> work changes if folks have them, if none move it to the website page
> proper on Monday - sound good?
>
> //drew
>
>
+1 Drew
--
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Open-Source Software in Libraries - http://FOSS4Lib.org
Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Apache Open Office Developer wolfhalton@apache.org
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/07/2012 09:42 AM, drew wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 12:27 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> <orcmid>
>>>>>> This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>> This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks
>>>>>> register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what
>>>>>> happens
>>>>>> when sending an e-mail somewhere.
>>>>>> </orcmid>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration. But note
>>>>> that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache
>>>>> service, for example CWiki.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A red herring? I don't think so - why should it only be valid if already
>>>> there. The site references our mailing lists and certainly did, likely
>>>> still does, IMO a comment on the public nature of mailing lists is
>>>> really appropriate here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The point is this: a user can contribute to the mailing list without
>>> ever having visited the website. So posting ToU for the mailing list
>>> on a website is not going to really have any legal or even advisory
>>> effect. One thing that we could do is put ToU in the confirmation
>>> note we send to new list subscribers. Or even a link to a
>>> consolidated ToU on the website if that is how we do it.
>>>
>>> In any case, most of the ToU is in the nature of a notice: we are
>>> telling the user what will are doing, what we can do, and what we will
>>> do under certainly conditions. The main exception, where we are
>>> demanding something of the user, is if where we require a licence on
>>> their contributions. So that is the one thing where we cannot be
>>> casual. If we want to have an incoming licence on contributions that
>>> really needs to be baked into registration systems, list
>>> acknowledgement emails, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I agree that this is a notice - I still feel it would appropriate
>> to mention mailing list.
>>
>> What I've done just now is simply to move your text verbatim to the wiki
>> - I'll add a paragraph for what I think is an apt way to address this.
>> Give a read to that, and if you or anyone else thinks it's just our of
>> place, well, that's why it's a white board, right ;-)
>>
>>
>> //drew
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I just did a very quick draft mock-up of a new TOU at:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/***
> DRAFT*+Terms+of+Use<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/*DRAFT*+Terms+of+Use>
>
> based on Dennis's original corrections at:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=118518<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>
>
> IT still seems rather lengthy to me but...
>
> and it needs some additional information (ref URLs) and in what state is
> ASF "incorporated" or registered?
>
> I agree with Drew that perhaps we should mention the mailing lists in some
> way...
>
>
>
> I will work on this more tomorrow sometime and perhaps we can actually fix
> this.
>
oh boy...well duh on me...when trying to track down where people should go
when they think their own copyright has been infringed upon, I came across
this...
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/terms.html
already on the incubator web side.
Is there any reason we just can't replace the current "Terms on Use" on
openoffice.org with a link to this? It looks pretty good to me.
Again, no reference to mailing lists -- I'm assuming we only want to
highlight them with respect to validity of information? I don't see any
other reason to throw them in really.
Anyway, having found this other link, I will delete my mockup on the wiki.
No use confusing things further.
> --
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
> MzK
>
> "There's no crying in baseball!"
> -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"I would rather have a donkey that takes me there
than a horse that will not fare."
-- Portuguese proverb
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 07/07/2012 09:42 AM, drew wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 12:27 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> <orcmid>
>>>>> This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people
>>>>> register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish
>>>>> that.
>>>>> This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks
>>>>> register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens
>>>>> when sending an e-mail somewhere.
>>>>> </orcmid>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration. But note
>>>> that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache
>>>> service, for example CWiki.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring.
>>>
>>> A red herring? I don't think so - why should it only be valid if already
>>> there. The site references our mailing lists and certainly did, likely
>>> still does, IMO a comment on the public nature of mailing lists is
>>> really appropriate here.
>>>
>>
>> The point is this: a user can contribute to the mailing list without
>> ever having visited the website. So posting ToU for the mailing list
>> on a website is not going to really have any legal or even advisory
>> effect. One thing that we could do is put ToU in the confirmation
>> note we send to new list subscribers. Or even a link to a
>> consolidated ToU on the website if that is how we do it.
>>
>> In any case, most of the ToU is in the nature of a notice: we are
>> telling the user what will are doing, what we can do, and what we will
>> do under certainly conditions. The main exception, where we are
>> demanding something of the user, is if where we require a licence on
>> their contributions. So that is the one thing where we cannot be
>> casual. If we want to have an incoming licence on contributions that
>> really needs to be baked into registration systems, list
>> acknowledgement emails, etc.
>
> Well, I agree that this is a notice - I still feel it would appropriate
> to mention mailing list.
>
> What I've done just now is simply to move your text verbatim to the wiki
> - I'll add a paragraph for what I think is an apt way to address this.
> Give a read to that, and if you or anyone else thinks it's just our of
> place, well, that's why it's a white board, right ;-)
>
>
> //drew
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
>
I just did a very quick draft mock-up of a new TOU at:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/*DRAFT*+Terms+of+Use
based on Dennis's original corrections at:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518
IT still seems rather lengthy to me but...
and it needs some additional information (ref URLs) and in what state is
ASF "incorporated" or registered?
I agree with Drew that perhaps we should mention the mailing lists in
some way...
I will work on this more tomorrow sometime and perhaps we can actually
fix this.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There's no crying in baseball!"
-- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 12:27 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>
> <snip>
>
> >> > <orcmid>
> >> > This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people
> >> > register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish
> >> > that.
> >> > This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks
> >> > register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens
> >> > when sending an e-mail somewhere.
> >> > </orcmid>
> >> >
> >>
> >> It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration. But note
> >> that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache
> >> service, for example CWiki.
> >>
> >> Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring.
> >
> > A red herring? I don't think so - why should it only be valid if already
> > there. The site references our mailing lists and certainly did, likely
> > still does, IMO a comment on the public nature of mailing lists is
> > really appropriate here.
> >
>
> The point is this: a user can contribute to the mailing list without
> ever having visited the website. So posting ToU for the mailing list
> on a website is not going to really have any legal or even advisory
> effect. One thing that we could do is put ToU in the confirmation
> note we send to new list subscribers. Or even a link to a
> consolidated ToU on the website if that is how we do it.
>
> In any case, most of the ToU is in the nature of a notice: we are
> telling the user what will are doing, what we can do, and what we will
> do under certainly conditions. The main exception, where we are
> demanding something of the user, is if where we require a licence on
> their contributions. So that is the one thing where we cannot be
> casual. If we want to have an incoming licence on contributions that
> really needs to be baked into registration systems, list
> acknowledgement emails, etc.
Well, I agree that this is a notice - I still feel it would appropriate
to mention mailing list.
What I've done just now is simply to move your text verbatim to the wiki
- I'll add a paragraph for what I think is an apt way to address this.
Give a read to that, and if you or anyone else thinks it's just our of
place, well, that's why it's a white board, right ;-)
//drew
>
> -Rob
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<snip>
>> > <orcmid>
>> > This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people
>> > register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish
>> > that.
>> > This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks
>> > register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens
>> > when sending an e-mail somewhere.
>> > </orcmid>
>> >
>>
>> It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration. But note
>> that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache
>> service, for example CWiki.
>>
>> Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring.
>
> A red herring? I don't think so - why should it only be valid if already
> there. The site references our mailing lists and certainly did, likely
> still does, IMO a comment on the public nature of mailing lists is
> really appropriate here.
>
The point is this: a user can contribute to the mailing list without
ever having visited the website. So posting ToU for the mailing list
on a website is not going to really have any legal or even advisory
effect. One thing that we could do is put ToU in the confirmation
note we send to new list subscribers. Or even a link to a
consolidated ToU on the website if that is how we do it.
In any case, most of the ToU is in the nature of a notice: we are
telling the user what will are doing, what we can do, and what we will
do under certainly conditions. The main exception, where we are
demanding something of the user, is if where we require a licence on
their contributions. So that is the one thing where we cannot be
casual. If we want to have an incoming licence on contributions that
really needs to be baked into registration systems, list
acknowledgement emails, etc.
-Rob
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> > Let's step back a little.
> >
> > The markup that I created was designed to morph the Oracle terms of service to one that was similar but modified to use of ASF as the HOST and eliminate those considerations that do not apply (e.g., the use of distinct projects on the web site) under ASF custodianship.
> >
> > This approach was so folks could compare with what was already in place and produce a harmonious replacement.
> >
> > I'm not a lawyer and not prepared to say what is too much or too little. I agree that plain language statements are preferable. My favorite document of this kind is, after all, the Creative Commons Attribution Deed 2.0.
> >
> > However, there are some essential considerations, it seems to me:
> >
> > 1. Privacy should probably be separated as is commonplace on sites of this kind. Privacy should extend beyond what is done to support performance of the site and what the monitoring is, to embrace more clearly what is done with anything that is considered personally-identifiable information. In particular, the reliance on email addresses being made visible as a policy is something that users need to be aware of and why, and the need to be able to contact people by the e-mail address provided is also a matter of concern.
>
> What I have here is the minimum we need, mainly to satisfy Google, via
> their Terms of Service on the use of Google Analytics. If you want to
> add more, feel free.
Howdy Dennis, Rob, etc
I agree that it is common to see it as a separate page, but can't say
that I know of a why, beyond convention.
Using a a single TOU for _everything_ from the main site to the blog it
would seem easier to move it into the common text, but the one thing I
don't want to see is a privacy policy listed in two places ;)
I don't have a big preference as to pp in the tou or a link to it.
The text in the privacy section in Rob's proposal looks like a straight
copy from http://www.openoffice.org/privacy.html with an addition of the
paragraph to handle the wiki(s)/forums registration and would need then
to update http://www.openoffice.org/license.html also. (I did not check
if the stand alone privacy page is linked from anywhere else)
>
> > If there is any kind of promise to be careful with personal data, that needs to be made in a way that the ASF can demonstrate diligence about and the ASF needs to be aware of the obligation the promise represents.
>
> My draft did not make any promise, so I don't see an issue.
>
> > Privacy statements should be dated and back versions should be accessible.
> >
>
> Yes, the ToU in general should be dated, etc.
OK
>
> > 2. The Terms of Use should be clear about what the HOST (the ASF) is granting generally to users of the site and what contributors to the site are granting to the HOST and all Users, absent any clearly-established special cases (licenses, contribution agreements, etc.). The outgoing license is a clear condition of a TOU and not having one for readers of general web pages seems erroneious. The actions that the HOST will take without notice and at its own discretion need to be clear also.
>
> Obviously I disagree. IMHO, An explicit outgoing license is not at
> all necessary in the ToU. Any public website has an implicit license
> that users can read it. That's all we require as a general statement.
> For most websites in the world, that is all they have.
>
> Beyond that, in a website like ours, with eclectic content under
> various licenses, in some cases undetermined licenses, we cannot make
> any simple, general and true statement about the outgoing license.
>
> It might be possible to make some extraordinarily complex statement
> about the outgoing license the website, but I don't see the value of
> that. In the end we're publishing software, not a website.
>
> It should not necessarily for someone to copy the website and create
> derivative works any more than it is necessary to copy posts from the
> mailing list to do the same.
>
> > In this case, I think that the terms of use definitely need to be dated and back issues available.
> >
IMO handle this by placing the license for a page on the page, and would
not expand the text in the TOU proposal.
So I suppose what that means is I would favor a standard footer for the
different websites covered, using the current main sites footer as the
template, over time.
>
> Sure.
>
> > <orcmid comments="more in-line below"/>
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 06:50
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> > <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >> I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went nowhere. The JIRA issue is here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>. Here's the connected issue on our Bugzilla: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>. I came to our Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF custodianship.
> >>
> >
> > OK. I read that over. IMHO it is still too much. It is dressed up
> > in chain mail armour, as befits a big corporation with the risk
> > profile of a big corporation. Large corporations are a magnet for
> > petty lawsuits. But the circumstances are different with the ASF.
> > Our main concern is (or should be) clarity and helpfulness to the
> > reader, not to protect our multi-billion dollar corporation. I''d
> > also entirely separate the outgoing license question. This is not a
> > ToU question. That can be covered separate by a "license" link on the
> > various websites, which might be simple in some case (incubator site
> > is 100% ALv2) and less so on some legacy sites.
> >
> > <orcmid>
> > What do you mean by the incubator site? I disagree about ALv2
> > for http://www.openoffice.org since the honoring of ALv2 is more
> > restrictive/intrusive than the incoming grant of legacy material
> > requires. Furthermore, patent non-assertions were never collected.
> > </orcmid>
> >
>
> The incubator site is the one at
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg. Since that site is 100%
> from Apache committers, submitted under iCLA, we can state
> unequivocally that that site is ALv2. Agreed?
>
> > So a minimal approach might look something like this, which could be
> > applied across all of our websites:
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Consolidated Terms of Use for Apache OpenOffice Websites
> >
> > The Apache Software Foundation hosts several websites on behalf of the
> > Apache OpenOffice project:
> >
> > -- under openoffice.org
> >
> > - under incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg
> >
> > - under cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS
> >
> > - under issues.apache.org/ooo/
> >
> > -- under blogs.apache.org/ooo/
> >
> > By your use of these websites you acknowledge that you have read these
> > Terms and agree to them.
> >
> > <orcmid>
> > I think it should apply to the site being accessed and from which the
> > ToU is linked. Also, the "By your use ..." without even a click-through
> > the claim of reading and agreement is about as corporate as it gets
> > and indefensible.
> > </orcmid>
> >
>
> Defensible against what exactly? What risk are you concerned about?
>
> >
> >
> > 1. Privacy
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > Additionally, some of websites have a user registration systems that
> > queries you for information such as name, password and email address.
> > This information is collected, stored and used in order to provide
> > you a unique login and to associate that login with your activity on
> > the website. We endeavour keep this information private, but it may
> > be revealed to a competent authority under a lawful order.
> >
> > By using this website, you consent to the collection of this data in
> > the manner and for the purpose described above.
> >
> > <orcmid>
> > This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people
> > register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish
> > that.
> > This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks
> > register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens
> > when sending an e-mail somewhere.
> > </orcmid>
> >
>
> It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration. But note
> that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache
> service, for example CWiki.
>
> Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring.
A red herring? I don't think so - why should it only be valid if already
there. The site references our mailing lists and certainly did, likely
still does, IMO a comment on the public nature of mailing lists is
really appropriate here.
>
> >
> > 2. User submitted content
> >
> > By submitting content to the website, you agree that this content may
> > be hosted on the website, for the benefit of other website users.
> > Additionally, you agree that your submissions may be edited, modified,
> > translated, copied, within the website. You warrant that you have
> > sufficient rights to any content that you submit to the website
> > necessary to grant the above license.
I would add one thing (word) here - we have the right to _remove_ any
content, picky I know but I would say it directly.
> >
> > <orcmid>
> > The "within the website" basically provides no outgoing license to
> > the contribution. The Oracle ToU is not clear about that, but a
>
> Correct. Nothing more than the implicit one.
>
> > counterpart to the incoming license would be very good there.
> > I would not allow stipulation of broader licenses. That makes this
> > all impossible and is sort of anti-community, it seems to me.
> > </orcmid>
>
>
> Why would a broader license be anti-community? And remember, we can
> never prevent a user from putting a broader license on a contribution.
>
> >
> > If you wish to offer a broader license, to allow 3rd parties to reuse
> > your content outside of this website, then you may do so, provided the
> > license is compatible with the above requirements. Apache License 2.0
> > is especially recommended. Please mark the license prominently in
> > your contribution.
> >
> > <orcmid>
> > To emphasize, this is too burdensome and it creates a problem around
> > permissible use and who determines what that is. Having bits and
>
> Burdensome for whom?
>
> > pieces under individual license notices makes no sense.
>
> We already have that, with openoffice.org website, with our incubator
> website, and even with other parts of Apache. Take for example JIRA,
> where an attachment can be marked as being a contribution or not.
>
> If you read the iCLA you see that as a committer you have that ability
> as well, to indicate in an email, or in subversion, or on the website,
> whether or not something is a contribution.
>
> So we're not starting from some pure world where we can assume a
> single incoming license.
>
> Another proof point for how this works is with the extensions and
> templates websites. They manage to have eclectic licenses. So long
> as they are each declared, there is no need for a default license or
> to exclude per-item licenses.
>
>
> > It might be useful to have the conditions for submission to the
> > site be at a place where submissions can happen, and deal more with
> > what the outgoing license is in the absence of any notice to the
> > contrary.
> > </orcmid>
> >
>
> If we were interested in enforcing ToU against a user, then yes, we
> would make this bulletproof and put it in their face at registration
> time and at the time of their contribution. But I don't see us having
> that need. For us the ToU is more a set of notices that we want the
> user to be aware, for their benefit and to avoid confusion. We're
> trying to be helpful.
>
> > 3. Exclusions
> >
> > The websites at extensions.openoffice.org and templates.openoffice.org
> > are not operated by the Apache Software Foundation and are not covered
> > by this Terms.
> >
> > 4. Changes to these Terms
> >
> > We may change these Terms from time to time. When we make substantive
> > changes we will also make an announcement on the ooo-announce mailing
> > list.
> >
> > <orcmid>
> > These definitely need to be versioned and the older versions archived.
> > I favor having references back to the previous one in a chain
> > that anyone can chase.
> > </orcmid>
> >
>
> That would be fine.
OK
>
> -Rob
Ok - well, I think that the current TOU page should be updated sooner
rather then later now - it's been deferred long enough huh? *smile*.
I think it is easier to start with simple and embellish as we see fit.
so how about let's use this page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/website-terms-of-use-draft
fir a quick white board.
Will start from a copy of Rob's text - add my two edits - and lets just
work changes if folks have them, if none move it to the website page
proper on Monday - sound good?
//drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Let's step back a little.
>
> The markup that I created was designed to morph the Oracle terms of service to one that was similar but modified to use of ASF as the HOST and eliminate those considerations that do not apply (e.g., the use of distinct projects on the web site) under ASF custodianship.
>
> This approach was so folks could compare with what was already in place and produce a harmonious replacement.
>
> I'm not a lawyer and not prepared to say what is too much or too little. I agree that plain language statements are preferable. My favorite document of this kind is, after all, the Creative Commons Attribution Deed 2.0.
>
> However, there are some essential considerations, it seems to me:
>
> 1. Privacy should probably be separated as is commonplace on sites of this kind. Privacy should extend beyond what is done to support performance of the site and what the monitoring is, to embrace more clearly what is done with anything that is considered personally-identifiable information. In particular, the reliance on email addresses being made visible as a policy is something that users need to be aware of and why, and the need to be able to contact people by the e-mail address provided is also a matter of concern.
What I have here is the minimum we need, mainly to satisfy Google, via
their Terms of Service on the use of Google Analytics. If you want to
add more, feel free.
> If there is any kind of promise to be careful with personal data, that needs to be made in a way that the ASF can demonstrate diligence about and the ASF needs to be aware of the obligation the promise represents.
My draft did not make any promise, so I don't see an issue.
> Privacy statements should be dated and back versions should be accessible.
>
Yes, the ToU in general should be dated, etc.
> 2. The Terms of Use should be clear about what the HOST (the ASF) is granting generally to users of the site and what contributors to the site are granting to the HOST and all Users, absent any clearly-established special cases (licenses, contribution agreements, etc.). The outgoing license is a clear condition of a TOU and not having one for readers of general web pages seems erroneious. The actions that the HOST will take without notice and at its own discretion need to be clear also.
Obviously I disagree. IMHO, An explicit outgoing license is not at
all necessary in the ToU. Any public website has an implicit license
that users can read it. That's all we require as a general statement.
For most websites in the world, that is all they have.
Beyond that, in a website like ours, with eclectic content under
various licenses, in some cases undetermined licenses, we cannot make
any simple, general and true statement about the outgoing license.
It might be possible to make some extraordinarily complex statement
about the outgoing license the website, but I don't see the value of
that. In the end we're publishing software, not a website.
It should not necessarily for someone to copy the website and create
derivative works any more than it is necessary to copy posts from the
mailing list to do the same.
> In this case, I think that the terms of use definitely need to be dated and back issues available.
>
Sure.
> <orcmid comments="more in-line below"/>
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 06:50
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>> I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went nowhere. The JIRA issue is here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>. Here's the connected issue on our Bugzilla: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>. I came to our Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF custodianship.
>>
>
> OK. I read that over. IMHO it is still too much. It is dressed up
> in chain mail armour, as befits a big corporation with the risk
> profile of a big corporation. Large corporations are a magnet for
> petty lawsuits. But the circumstances are different with the ASF.
> Our main concern is (or should be) clarity and helpfulness to the
> reader, not to protect our multi-billion dollar corporation. I''d
> also entirely separate the outgoing license question. This is not a
> ToU question. That can be covered separate by a "license" link on the
> various websites, which might be simple in some case (incubator site
> is 100% ALv2) and less so on some legacy sites.
>
> <orcmid>
> What do you mean by the incubator site? I disagree about ALv2
> for http://www.openoffice.org since the honoring of ALv2 is more
> restrictive/intrusive than the incoming grant of legacy material
> requires. Furthermore, patent non-assertions were never collected.
> </orcmid>
>
The incubator site is the one at
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg. Since that site is 100%
from Apache committers, submitted under iCLA, we can state
unequivocally that that site is ALv2. Agreed?
> So a minimal approach might look something like this, which could be
> applied across all of our websites:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Consolidated Terms of Use for Apache OpenOffice Websites
>
> The Apache Software Foundation hosts several websites on behalf of the
> Apache OpenOffice project:
>
> -- under openoffice.org
>
> - under incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg
>
> - under cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS
>
> - under issues.apache.org/ooo/
>
> -- under blogs.apache.org/ooo/
>
> By your use of these websites you acknowledge that you have read these
> Terms and agree to them.
>
> <orcmid>
> I think it should apply to the site being accessed and from which the
> ToU is linked. Also, the "By your use ..." without even a click-through
> the claim of reading and agreement is about as corporate as it gets
> and indefensible.
> </orcmid>
>
Defensible against what exactly? What risk are you concerned about?
>
>
> 1. Privacy
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Additionally, some of websites have a user registration systems that
> queries you for information such as name, password and email address.
> This information is collected, stored and used in order to provide
> you a unique login and to associate that login with your activity on
> the website. We endeavour keep this information private, but it may
> be revealed to a competent authority under a lawful order.
>
> By using this website, you consent to the collection of this data in
> the manner and for the purpose described above.
>
> <orcmid>
> This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people
> register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish
> that.
> This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks
> register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens
> when sending an e-mail somewhere.
> </orcmid>
>
It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration. But note
that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache
service, for example CWiki.
Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring.
>
> 2. User submitted content
>
> By submitting content to the website, you agree that this content may
> be hosted on the website, for the benefit of other website users.
> Additionally, you agree that your submissions may be edited, modified,
> translated, copied, within the website. You warrant that you have
> sufficient rights to any content that you submit to the website
> necessary to grant the above license.
>
> <orcmid>
> The "within the website" basically provides no outgoing license to
> the contribution. The Oracle ToU is not clear about that, but a
Correct. Nothing more than the implicit one.
> counterpart to the incoming license would be very good there.
> I would not allow stipulation of broader licenses. That makes this
> all impossible and is sort of anti-community, it seems to me.
> </orcmid>
Why would a broader license be anti-community? And remember, we can
never prevent a user from putting a broader license on a contribution.
>
> If you wish to offer a broader license, to allow 3rd parties to reuse
> your content outside of this website, then you may do so, provided the
> license is compatible with the above requirements. Apache License 2.0
> is especially recommended. Please mark the license prominently in
> your contribution.
>
> <orcmid>
> To emphasize, this is too burdensome and it creates a problem around
> permissible use and who determines what that is. Having bits and
Burdensome for whom?
> pieces under individual license notices makes no sense.
We already have that, with openoffice.org website, with our incubator
website, and even with other parts of Apache. Take for example JIRA,
where an attachment can be marked as being a contribution or not.
If you read the iCLA you see that as a committer you have that ability
as well, to indicate in an email, or in subversion, or on the website,
whether or not something is a contribution.
So we're not starting from some pure world where we can assume a
single incoming license.
Another proof point for how this works is with the extensions and
templates websites. They manage to have eclectic licenses. So long
as they are each declared, there is no need for a default license or
to exclude per-item licenses.
> It might be useful to have the conditions for submission to the
> site be at a place where submissions can happen, and deal more with
> what the outgoing license is in the absence of any notice to the
> contrary.
> </orcmid>
>
If we were interested in enforcing ToU against a user, then yes, we
would make this bulletproof and put it in their face at registration
time and at the time of their contribution. But I don't see us having
that need. For us the ToU is more a set of notices that we want the
user to be aware, for their benefit and to avoid confusion. We're
trying to be helpful.
> 3. Exclusions
>
> The websites at extensions.openoffice.org and templates.openoffice.org
> are not operated by the Apache Software Foundation and are not covered
> by this Terms.
>
> 4. Changes to these Terms
>
> We may change these Terms from time to time. When we make substantive
> changes we will also make an announcement on the ooo-announce mailing
> list.
>
> <orcmid>
> These definitely need to be versioned and the older versions archived.
> I favor having references back to the previous one in a chain
> that anyone can chase.
> </orcmid>
>
That would be fine.
-Rob
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [ ... ]
>
RE: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Let's step back a little.
The markup that I created was designed to morph the Oracle terms of service to one that was similar but modified to use of ASF as the HOST and eliminate those considerations that do not apply (e.g., the use of distinct projects on the web site) under ASF custodianship.
This approach was so folks could compare with what was already in place and produce a harmonious replacement.
I'm not a lawyer and not prepared to say what is too much or too little. I agree that plain language statements are preferable. My favorite document of this kind is, after all, the Creative Commons Attribution Deed 2.0.
However, there are some essential considerations, it seems to me:
1. Privacy should probably be separated as is commonplace on sites of this kind. Privacy should extend beyond what is done to support performance of the site and what the monitoring is, to embrace more clearly what is done with anything that is considered personally-identifiable information. In particular, the reliance on email addresses being made visible as a policy is something that users need to be aware of and why, and the need to be able to contact people by the e-mail address provided is also a matter of concern.
If there is any kind of promise to be careful with personal data, that needs to be made in a way that the ASF can demonstrate diligence about and the ASF needs to be aware of the obligation the promise represents.
Privacy statements should be dated and back versions should be accessible.
2. The Terms of Use should be clear about what the HOST (the ASF) is granting generally to users of the site and what contributors to the site are granting to the HOST and all Users, absent any clearly-established special cases (licenses, contribution agreements, etc.). The outgoing license is a clear condition of a TOU and not having one for readers of general web pages seems erroneious. The actions that the HOST will take without notice and at its own discretion need to be clear also.
In this case, I think that the terms of use definitely need to be dated and back issues available.
<orcmid comments="more in-line below"/>
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 06:50
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
[ ... ]
> I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went nowhere. The JIRA issue is here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>. Here's the connected issue on our Bugzilla: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>. I came to our Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF custodianship.
>
OK. I read that over. IMHO it is still too much. It is dressed up
in chain mail armour, as befits a big corporation with the risk
profile of a big corporation. Large corporations are a magnet for
petty lawsuits. But the circumstances are different with the ASF.
Our main concern is (or should be) clarity and helpfulness to the
reader, not to protect our multi-billion dollar corporation. I''d
also entirely separate the outgoing license question. This is not a
ToU question. That can be covered separate by a "license" link on the
various websites, which might be simple in some case (incubator site
is 100% ALv2) and less so on some legacy sites.
<orcmid>
What do you mean by the incubator site? I disagree about ALv2
for http://www.openoffice.org since the honoring of ALv2 is more
restrictive/intrusive than the incoming grant of legacy material
requires. Furthermore, patent non-assertions were never collected.
</orcmid>
So a minimal approach might look something like this, which could be
applied across all of our websites:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Terms of Use for Apache OpenOffice Websites
The Apache Software Foundation hosts several websites on behalf of the
Apache OpenOffice project:
-- under openoffice.org
- under incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg
- under cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS
- under issues.apache.org/ooo/
-- under blogs.apache.org/ooo/
By your use of these websites you acknowledge that you have read these
Terms and agree to them.
<orcmid>
I think it should apply to the site being accessed and from which the
ToU is linked. Also, the "By your use ..." without even a click-through
the claim of reading and agreement is about as corporate as it gets
and indefensible.
</orcmid>
1. Privacy
[ ... ]
Additionally, some of websites have a user registration systems that
queries you for information such as name, password and email address.
This information is collected, stored and used in order to provide
you a unique login and to associate that login with your activity on
the website. We endeavour keep this information private, but it may
be revealed to a competent authority under a lawful order.
By using this website, you consent to the collection of this data in
the manner and for the purpose described above.
<orcmid>
This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people
register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish
that.
This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks
register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens
when sending an e-mail somewhere.
</orcmid>
2. User submitted content
By submitting content to the website, you agree that this content may
be hosted on the website, for the benefit of other website users.
Additionally, you agree that your submissions may be edited, modified,
translated, copied, within the website. You warrant that you have
sufficient rights to any content that you submit to the website
necessary to grant the above license.
<orcmid>
The "within the website" basically provides no outgoing license to
the contribution. The Oracle ToU is not clear about that, but a
counterpart to the incoming license would be very good there.
I would not allow stipulation of broader licenses. That makes this
all impossible and is sort of anti-community, it seems to me.
</orcmid>
If you wish to offer a broader license, to allow 3rd parties to reuse
your content outside of this website, then you may do so, provided the
license is compatible with the above requirements. Apache License 2.0
is especially recommended. Please mark the license prominently in
your contribution.
<orcmid>
To emphasize, this is too burdensome and it creates a problem around
permissible use and who determines what that is. Having bits and
pieces under individual license notices makes no sense.
It might be useful to have the conditions for submission to the
site be at a place where submissions can happen, and deal more with
what the outgoing license is in the absence of any notice to the
contrary.
</orcmid>
3. Exclusions
The websites at extensions.openoffice.org and templates.openoffice.org
are not operated by the Apache Software Foundation and are not covered
by this Terms.
4. Changes to these Terms
We may change these Terms from time to time. When we make substantive
changes we will also make an announcement on the ooo-announce mailing
list.
<orcmid>
These definitely need to be versioned and the older versions archived.
I favor having references back to the previous one in a chain
that anyone can chase.
</orcmid>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ... ]
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> > @Rob,
> >
> > Yes, I am seeing what you are seeing.
> >
> > Concerning the ToU for the forums, it is the same as what was previously
> on the web site. While there is a license grant for non-code and other
> places where no other license is applied, the license is also to "all
> Users".
> >
> > @Rob, @Drew, @Kay
> >
> > I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent
> with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as
> far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went nowhere. The JIRA issue
> is here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>. Here's the
> connected issue on our Bugzilla: <
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>. I came to our
> Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the
> Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one
> that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF
> custodianship.
> >
>
> OK. I read that over. IMHO it is still too much. It is dressed up
> in chain mail armour, as befits a big corporation with the risk
> profile of a big corporation. Large corporations are a magnet for
> petty lawsuits. But the circumstances are different with the ASF.
> Our main concern is (or should be) clarity and helpfulness to the
> reader, not to protect our multi-billion dollar corporation. I''d
> also entirely separate the outgoing license question. This is not a
> ToU question. That can be covered separate by a "license" link on the
> various websites, which might be simple in some case (incubator site
> is 100% ALv2) and less so on some legacy sites.
>
> So a minimal approach might look something like this, which could be
> applied across all of our websites:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Consolidated Terms of Use for Apache OpenOffice Websites
>
> The Apache Software Foundation hosts several websites on behalf of the
> Apache OpenOffice project:
>
> -- under openoffice.org
>
> - under incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg
>
> - under cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS
>
> - under issues.apache.org/ooo/
>
> -- under blogs.apache.org/ooo/
>
> By your use of these websites you acknowledge that you have read these
> Terms and agree to them.
>
>
> 1. Privacy
>
>
> Information about your use of the websites is collected using server
> access logs and a tracking cookie. The collected information consists
> of the following:
>
> The IP address from which you access the website;
> The type of browser and operating system you use to access our site;
> The date and time you access our site;
> The pages you visit; and
> The addresses of pages from where you followed a link to our site.
>
> Part of this information is gathered using a tracking cookie set by
> the Google Analytics service and handled by Google as described in
> their privacy policy . See your browser documentation for instructions
> on how to disable the cookie if you prefer not to share this data with
> Google.
>
> We use the gathered information to help us make our site more useful
> to visitors and to better understand how and when our site is used.
>
> Additionally, some of websites have a user registration systems that
> queries you for information such as name, password and email address.
> This information is collected, stored and used in order to provide
> you a unique login and to associate that login with your activity on
> the website. We endeavour keep this information private, but it may
> be revealed to a competent authority under a lawful order.
>
> By using this website, you consent to the collection of this data in
> the manner and for the purpose described above.
>
>
> 2. User submitted content
>
> By submitting content to the website, you agree that this content may
> be hosted on the website, for the benefit of other website users.
> Additionally, you agree that your submissions may be edited, modified,
> translated, copied, within the website. You warrant that you have
> sufficient rights to any content that you submit to the website
> necessary to grant the above license.
>
> If you wish to offer a broader license, to allow 3rd parties to reuse
> your content outside of this website, then you may do so, provided the
> license is compatible with the above requirements. Apache License 2.0
> is especially recommended. Please mark the license prominently in
> your contribution.
>
> 3. Exclusions
>
> The websites at extensions.openoffice.org and templates.openoffice.org
> are not operated by the Apache Software Foundation and are not covered
> by this Terms.
>
> 4. Changes to these Terms
>
> We may change these Terms from time to time. When we make substantive
> changes we will also make an announcement on the ooo-announce mailing
> list.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> > It addresses some of the cases that Rob also mentions. I stand by my
> analysis. You might want to see how to carve out what you want from that,
> since it is at least a start and the places where further customization may
> be called for are all identified.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > Some months ago it was discussed with the ASF Board whether a privacy
> condition and safe-harbor setup was desired. That apparently didn't get
> anywhere.
> >
> >
>
I like this kinder, gentler ToU, Rob.
Is it still a good contract that doesn't allow things we don't want to
allow? If so, then we can just post it somewhere and point the ToU links
on all the sites at it. Right?
-Wolf
--
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Open-Source Software in Libraries - http://FOSS4Lib.org
Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Apache Open Office Developer wolfhalton@apache.org
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> @Rob,
>
> Yes, I am seeing what you are seeing.
>
> Concerning the ToU for the forums, it is the same as what was previously on the web site. While there is a license grant for non-code and other places where no other license is applied, the license is also to "all Users".
>
> @Rob, @Drew, @Kay
>
> I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went nowhere. The JIRA issue is here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>. Here's the connected issue on our Bugzilla: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>. I came to our Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF custodianship.
>
OK. I read that over. IMHO it is still too much. It is dressed up
in chain mail armour, as befits a big corporation with the risk
profile of a big corporation. Large corporations are a magnet for
petty lawsuits. But the circumstances are different with the ASF.
Our main concern is (or should be) clarity and helpfulness to the
reader, not to protect our multi-billion dollar corporation. I''d
also entirely separate the outgoing license question. This is not a
ToU question. That can be covered separate by a "license" link on the
various websites, which might be simple in some case (incubator site
is 100% ALv2) and less so on some legacy sites.
So a minimal approach might look something like this, which could be
applied across all of our websites:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Terms of Use for Apache OpenOffice Websites
The Apache Software Foundation hosts several websites on behalf of the
Apache OpenOffice project:
-- under openoffice.org
- under incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg
- under cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS
- under issues.apache.org/ooo/
-- under blogs.apache.org/ooo/
By your use of these websites you acknowledge that you have read these
Terms and agree to them.
1. Privacy
Information about your use of the websites is collected using server
access logs and a tracking cookie. The collected information consists
of the following:
The IP address from which you access the website;
The type of browser and operating system you use to access our site;
The date and time you access our site;
The pages you visit; and
The addresses of pages from where you followed a link to our site.
Part of this information is gathered using a tracking cookie set by
the Google Analytics service and handled by Google as described in
their privacy policy . See your browser documentation for instructions
on how to disable the cookie if you prefer not to share this data with
Google.
We use the gathered information to help us make our site more useful
to visitors and to better understand how and when our site is used.
Additionally, some of websites have a user registration systems that
queries you for information such as name, password and email address.
This information is collected, stored and used in order to provide
you a unique login and to associate that login with your activity on
the website. We endeavour keep this information private, but it may
be revealed to a competent authority under a lawful order.
By using this website, you consent to the collection of this data in
the manner and for the purpose described above.
2. User submitted content
By submitting content to the website, you agree that this content may
be hosted on the website, for the benefit of other website users.
Additionally, you agree that your submissions may be edited, modified,
translated, copied, within the website. You warrant that you have
sufficient rights to any content that you submit to the website
necessary to grant the above license.
If you wish to offer a broader license, to allow 3rd parties to reuse
your content outside of this website, then you may do so, provided the
license is compatible with the above requirements. Apache License 2.0
is especially recommended. Please mark the license prominently in
your contribution.
3. Exclusions
The websites at extensions.openoffice.org and templates.openoffice.org
are not operated by the Apache Software Foundation and are not covered
by this Terms.
4. Changes to these Terms
We may change these Terms from time to time. When we make substantive
changes we will also make an announcement on the ooo-announce mailing
list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> It addresses some of the cases that Rob also mentions. I stand by my analysis. You might want to see how to carve out what you want from that, since it is at least a start and the places where further customization may be called for are all identified.
>
> - Dennis
>
> Some months ago it was discussed with the ASF Board whether a privacy condition and safe-harbor setup was desired. That apparently didn't get anywhere.
>
>
RE: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
@Rob,
Yes, I am seeing what you are seeing.
Concerning the ToU for the forums, it is the same as what was previously on the web site. While there is a license grant for non-code and other places where no other license is applied, the license is also to "all Users".
@Rob, @Drew, @Kay
I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went nowhere. The JIRA issue is here: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>. Here's the connected issue on our Bugzilla: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>. I came to our Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF custodianship.
It addresses some of the cases that Rob also mentions. I stand by my analysis. You might want to see how to carve out what you want from that, since it is at least a start and the places where further customization may be called for are all identified.
- Dennis
Some months ago it was discussed with the ASF Board whether a privacy condition and safe-harbor setup was desired. That apparently didn't get anywhere.
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 20:56 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > Clean slate - alright!
>> >
>> > How about we just start with something everyone agrees on.
>> >
>>
>> Point of order. I've made a proposal, in this thread, just two days
>> ago. it is a "clean slate", based on nothing before it. I've
>> received only two substantive comments, from Wolf and Dennis.
>> Everyone else seems to be running around, trying to understand why the
>> ToU have not been updated yet.
>>
>> If you have some comments on my proposal I'd love to hear them.
>> Ditto, if Dave or anyone else does.
>
> Howdy Rob,
>
> Ah ha - long story, short - I read your email from Tuesday and not the
> one from Wed so..it seems we all agree that updating the text at
> http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use is the better way to go.
>
Actually, I have zero opinion on what the exact URL is. That is the
least substantial of all decisions that need to be made. IMHO, we
really need to start discussing the *contents* of the ToU. And in
general, I'd recommend that we not spend time on things where there is
already agreement. That does not move us forward. As far as I can
tell, the two remaining areas of disagreement are:
1) What is the incoming license we require of contributions to
user-editable services, like forums, wikis (CWiki and MWiki) and
Bugzilla?
2) What can we say about the outgoing license on content on these
services? Obviously this needs to harmonize with our answer to the
above question, as well as with past incoming licenses on legacy
contributions.
For #1 I was arguing for a minimal license that merely allows us to
host the content on our servers, but does not offer 3rd parties any
reuse. Remember, we're talking about users posting bugs, asking
questions on forums, etc. Requiring any greater license on these
sites would be a huge inhibition for corporate employees to submit bug
reports, ask questions on forums, etc. Or would be for any corporate
employees who bothered to read the ToU's, since any greater terms
would typically require management approval. So I don't think we
should require opensource-style licenses from users merely interacting
with the project at the support level. But maybe they cross a
threshold when they start contributing to wikis.
-Rob
> and I'll pick it up in a reply to that (well Dennis' comments)..
>
> BTW - as for use of the wiki for shared editing, a TOU page on the wiki
> was already setup for that, been there a good while and yes I also agree
> it would of been better if you had updated that and pointed to it in
> your email message.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> //drew
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 20:56 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Clean slate - alright!
> >
> > How about we just start with something everyone agrees on.
> >
>
> Point of order. I've made a proposal, in this thread, just two days
> ago. it is a "clean slate", based on nothing before it. I've
> received only two substantive comments, from Wolf and Dennis.
> Everyone else seems to be running around, trying to understand why the
> ToU have not been updated yet.
>
> If you have some comments on my proposal I'd love to hear them.
> Ditto, if Dave or anyone else does.
Howdy Rob,
Ah ha - long story, short - I read your email from Tuesday and not the
one from Wed so..it seems we all agree that updating the text at
http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use is the better way to go.
and I'll pick it up in a reply to that (well Dennis' comments)..
BTW - as for use of the wiki for shared editing, a TOU page on the wiki
was already setup for that, been there a good while and yes I also agree
it would of been better if you had updated that and pointed to it in
your email message.
Best wishes,
//drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Clean slate - alright!
>
> How about we just start with something everyone agrees on.
>
Point of order. I've made a proposal, in this thread, just two days
ago. it is a "clean slate", based on nothing before it. I've
received only two substantive comments, from Wolf and Dennis.
Everyone else seems to be running around, trying to understand why the
ToU have not been updated yet.
If you have some comments on my proposal I'd love to hear them.
Ditto, if Dave or anyone else does.
> The page at http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use is wrong.
>
> We either fix it or stop using it and remove it.
>
> But for today...
>
> If you look at this page
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/
> it uses a footer matching the main site
> http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
> that is almost the same as the main site.
>
> So, could merge the current footer used at the individual forums and the
> footer at the landing page, dropping the link to the .../terms_of_use
> page on the main site.
>
> The copyright page link is good for the non-subscribed browser. Will add
> the privacy page link, and leav the current forum TOU used when
> subscribe in place, already translated to all languages.
>
> If that doesn't look like a waste of time to folks will put that
> together on an example page in the morning and post a link for review.
>
If we're now going to have several competing proposals rather than
iterating on a single one, then that's fine as well. But maybe it
would make sense to put these on the wiki so we can look at them side
by side?
-Rob
> //drew
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
Hello everyone,
Clean slate - alright!
How about we just start with something everyone agrees on.
The page at http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use is wrong.
We either fix it or stop using it and remove it.
But for today...
If you look at this page
http://user.services.openoffice.org/
it uses a footer matching the main site
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
that is almost the same as the main site.
So, could merge the current footer used at the individual forums and the
footer at the landing page, dropping the link to the .../terms_of_use
page on the main site.
The copyright page link is good for the non-subscribed browser. Will add
the privacy page link, and leav the current forum TOU used when
subscribe in place, already translated to all languages.
If that doesn't look like a waste of time to folks will put that
together on an example page in the morning and post a link for review.
//drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:57 PM, drew wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 22:22 +0200, hagar.delest wrote:
>>>> Message du 06/07/12 14:21
>>>> De : "drew"
>>>> *chuckling*...what you think my memory could be faulty - never.. well,
>>>> once or twice, maybe. Now what was the question?
>>>
>>> I think that the question can be closed since the link is now pointing to thte correct page.
>>>
>>> Perhaps during an operation on the forum recently that link had been reverted to the old Oracle page.
>>>
>>> Hagar
>>
>> Hi Hagar,
>>
>> You mean, I suppose, that the bottom link in the footer of each forum
>> (just double checked each) links to:
>> http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>>
>> I think that is where it should point, and that is the page in need of
>> update.
>
> Would someone please JFDI? There have been 100 emails on this topic on ooo-dev and ooo-private.
>
I think that is an argument against JFDI, not for it.
> If you are afraid it will be rejected then do a terms_of_use2 and then get feedback.
>
If you think something will be rejected then you should make a lazy
consensus proposal first. JFDI is for non-controversial changes.
> Between Dennis and Rob there is certainly some middle ground.
>
Not really relevant. Other views have been raised that agree with
neither Dennis nor me. So portraying our views as being the extremes
within which we should seek middle ground is inaccurate and divisive.
If you have a proposal to make, then make it, but without the
editorial commentary, please.
-Rob
> THANKS!
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> Another option would be, perhaps, to point to this page
>> http://www.openoffice.org/license.html instead - doesn't seem quite
>> right though.
>>
>> //drew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:57 PM, drew wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 22:22 +0200, hagar.delest wrote:
>>> Message du 06/07/12 14:21
>>> De : "drew"
>>> *chuckling*...what you think my memory could be faulty - never.. well,
>>> once or twice, maybe. Now what was the question?
>>
>> I think that the question can be closed since the link is now pointing to thte correct page.
>>
>> Perhaps during an operation on the forum recently that link had been reverted to the old Oracle page.
>>
>> Hagar
>
> Hi Hagar,
>
> You mean, I suppose, that the bottom link in the footer of each forum
> (just double checked each) links to:
> http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>
> I think that is where it should point, and that is the page in need of
> update.
Would someone please JFDI? There have been 100 emails on this topic on ooo-dev and ooo-private.
If you are afraid it will be rejected then do a terms_of_use2 and then get feedback.
Between Dennis and Rob there is certainly some middle ground.
THANKS!
Dave
>
> Another option would be, perhaps, to point to this page
> http://www.openoffice.org/license.html instead - doesn't seem quite
> right though.
>
> //drew
>
>
>
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 22:22 +0200, hagar.delest wrote:
> > Message du 06/07/12 14:21
> > De : "drew"
> > *chuckling*...what you think my memory could be faulty - never.. well,
> > once or twice, maybe. Now what was the question?
>
> I think that the question can be closed since the link is now pointing to thte correct page.
>
> Perhaps during an operation on the forum recently that link had been reverted to the old Oracle page.
>
> Hagar
Hi Hagar,
You mean, I suppose, that the bottom link in the footer of each forum
(just double checked each) links to:
http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
I think that is where it should point, and that is the page in need of
update.
Another option would be, perhaps, to point to this page
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html instead - doesn't seem quite
right though.
//drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by "hagar.delest" <ha...@laposte.net>.
> Message du 06/07/12 14:21
> De : "drew"
> *chuckling*...what you think my memory could be faulty - never.. well,
> once or twice, maybe. Now what was the question?
I think that the question can be closed since the link is now pointing to thte correct page.
Perhaps during an operation on the forum recently that link had been reverted to the old Oracle page.
Hagar
Une messagerie gratuite, garantie à vie et des services en plus, ça vous tente ?
Je crée ma boîte mail www.laposte.net
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 20:49 +0200, Hagar Delest wrote:
> Le mer. 04 juil. 2012 04:44:19 CEST, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> a écrit :
>
> > Yes - it goes to the page on the website - a page I tried to get people
> > to look at for fixup months ago - but there was no interest in doing so
> > at the time, and yes as it stands it is just wrong.
>
> Weird, after that discussion, I remember seeing the page being redirected to something like the wiki. It had definitively stopped pointing to the Oracle page.
>
> Hagar
>
*chuckling*...what you think my memory could be faulty - never.. well,
once or twice, maybe. Now what was the question?
//drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>wrote:
> Le mer. 04 juil. 2012 04:44:19 CEST, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> a écrit :
>
>
> Yes - it goes to the page on the website - a page I tried to get people
>> to look at for fixup months ago - but there was no interest in doing so
>> at the time, and yes as it stands it is just wrong.
>>
>
> Weird, after that discussion, I remember seeing the page being redirected
> to something like the wiki. It had definitively stopped pointing to the
> Oracle page.
>
> Hagar
>
Is it possible that some of the page footers are hard-coded, rather than
templated?
-Wolf
--
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Open-Source Software in Libraries - http://FOSS4Lib.org
Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Apache Open Office Developer wolfhalton@apache.org
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.
Le mer. 04 juil. 2012 04:44:19 CEST, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> a écrit :
> Yes - it goes to the page on the website - a page I tried to get people
> to look at for fixup months ago - but there was no interest in doing so
> at the time, and yes as it stands it is just wrong.
Weird, after that discussion, I remember seeing the page being redirected to something like the wiki. It had definitively stopped pointing to the Oracle page.
Hagar
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 22:32 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:18 PM, drew jensen <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 19:44 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
> >>
> >> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
> >>
> >> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
> >>
> >> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
> >>
> >> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
> >> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
> >> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
> >>
> >> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
> >> this remedied.
> >>
> >> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
> >> user/non-committer contributions.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >
> > Perhaps I'm mistaken - but - I thought it was rather decided to just let
> > the TOU continue pointing to the main website page, the idea being fix
> > it and cover the OO.o website site, forums and media wiki also.
> >
>
> Are you not seeing what I'm seeing? The TOU does not currently point
> to the main website page.
>
> Go to the forum and look at the bottom of the page where it says "By
> any use of this Website, you agree to be bound by these Policies and
> Terms of Use". Then click the link and read.
>
> Continuing with what is there is entirely out of the question, right?
> It is Oracle's terms of use, assigning rights of the content to
> Oracle.
>
> Please someone tell me that they are also seeing this.
Yes - it goes to the page on the website - a page I tried to get people
to look at for fixup months ago - but there was no interest in doing so
at the time, and yes as it stands it is just wrong.
So fix that page and the problem is gone isn't it.
I'm agreeing with you - it's time to fix it.
//drew
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
> > I suppose it's simply time now to actually re-write the TOU page on the
> > main website and reap the rewards for all three services.
> >
> > //drew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:18 PM, drew jensen <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 19:44 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>>
>> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>>
>> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>>
>> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>>
>> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
>> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
>> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>>
>> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
>> this remedied.
>>
>> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
>> user/non-committer contributions.
>>
>>
>> -Rob
>
> Perhaps I'm mistaken - but - I thought it was rather decided to just let
> the TOU continue pointing to the main website page, the idea being fix
> it and cover the OO.o website site, forums and media wiki also.
>
Are you not seeing what I'm seeing? The TOU does not currently point
to the main website page.
Go to the forum and look at the bottom of the page where it says "By
any use of this Website, you agree to be bound by these Policies and
Terms of Use". Then click the link and read.
Continuing with what is there is entirely out of the question, right?
It is Oracle's terms of use, assigning rights of the content to
Oracle.
Please someone tell me that they are also seeing this.
-Rob
> I suppose it's simply time now to actually re-write the TOU page on the
> main website and reap the rewards for all three services.
>
> //drew
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by drew jensen <dr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 19:44 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>
> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>
> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>
> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>
> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>
> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
> this remedied.
>
> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
> user/non-committer contributions.
>
>
> -Rob
Perhaps I'm mistaken - but - I thought it was rather decided to just let
the TOU continue pointing to the main website page, the idea being fix
it and cover the OO.o website site, forums and media wiki also.
I suppose it's simply time now to actually re-write the TOU page on the
main website and reap the rewards for all three services.
//drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:09 PM, imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> The terms of usage on forum is actually at:
>
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ucp.php?mode=terms
>
So we are pointing to two different terms of use pages on the same
forum? Even the page you point to has the other terms page linked in
its header.
> There seems to be no terms of usage o wiki.
>
> It is outdated, but it does not contain any "Oracle" blah blah blah.
>
> Do we need lawer review for our updated forum term of usage?
>
I think any lawyer would first tell us to pick a single terms of use
statement ;-)
> On 2012/07/04 07:44, Rob Weir said:
>> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>>
>> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>>
>> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>>
>> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>>
>> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
>> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
>> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>>
>> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
>> this remedied.
>>
>> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
>> user/non-committer contributions.
>>
>>
>> -Rob
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
>
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Posted by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>.
The terms of usage on forum is actually at:
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ucp.php?mode=terms
There seems to be no terms of usage o wiki.
It is outdated, but it does not contain any "Oracle" blah blah blah.
Do we need lawer review for our updated forum term of usage?
On 2012/07/04 07:44, Rob Weir said:
> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>
> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>
> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>
> This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>
> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>
> It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get
> this remedied.
>
> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow
> user/non-committer contributions.
>
>
> -Rob
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/