You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> on 2011/08/03 03:17:28 UTC
User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 20:43 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> >> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> >> > -1
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
> >> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're
> >> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
> >> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
> >> different things.
> >
> > *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note quoted
> > below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was
> > about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I
> > asked about.
> >
>
> From licensing perspective it is the same, whether it is content in
> wikitext or content in attachments to a wiki page. The thing that
> would be different would be links to content on external sites.
>
> If that is not answering your question, maybe you should restate, with
> a link to a specific example.
The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
Does this also mean that the guides cannot be part of the official
documentation set? That's okay with me (not sure what other contributors
think), but it seems less than ideal for the project.
Examples of the existing user guides can be downloaded from this page
and pages linked to it:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
--Jean
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
> >> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
> >> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
> >> >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
> >> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
> >> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
> >> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
> >> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
> >> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
> >> >>> is product documentation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
> >> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
> >> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
> >> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
> >> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
> >> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
> >> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
> >> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
> >> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
> >> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
> >> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> >> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> >> > quality, namely:
> >> >
> >> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> >> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> >> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
> >> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
> >> >
> >> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> >> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
> >> >
> >> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> >> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> >> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> >> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
> >> >
> >> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> >> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> >> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
> >> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> >> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> >> > this.
> >> >
> >> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> >> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> >> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> >> > annoyance to contributors.
> >> >
RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 15:17 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Jean,
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> My analysis is based on <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters>
> and related pages.
>
> Note: The Draw Guide material, which is apparently being updated as we speak, is apparently now V3.3, not 3.2. Also, the Math Guide claims publication on 2011-04-28 and being applicable to V3.3, so the information on the download page appears to be out of date as well.
Thanks for catching the typos in those two headings. I've now fixed
them. --Jean
>
> Summary: The User Guides are essentially third-party materials incorporated into the content of OpenOffice.org. In the individual User Guides there are copyright notices with regard to the collective contributors. Neither Oracle nor Sun are identified as contributors in those notices. It seems unlikely that any Oracle license grant to Apache applies (or even can apply) to these materials.
>
> - Dennis
>
RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Jean,
Thanks for the links.
My analysis is based on <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters>
and related pages.
Note: The Draw Guide material, which is apparently being updated as we speak, is apparently now V3.3, not 3.2. Also, the Math Guide claims publication on 2011-04-28 and being applicable to V3.3, so the information on the download page appears to be out of date as well.
Summary: The User Guides are essentially third-party materials incorporated into the content of OpenOffice.org. In the individual User Guides there are copyright notices with regard to the collective contributors. Neither Oracle nor Sun are identified as contributors in those notices. It seems unlikely that any Oracle license grant to Apache applies (or even can apply) to these materials.
- Dennis
ANALYSIS OF THE WAY COPYRIGHT AND LICENSING ARE HANDLED FOR THE USER GUIDES:
1. The web page has a Wiki:Copyright links which states, as we have noted before, a common notice page that says
"Copyright 1999, 2010 by the contributing authors and Oracle and/or its affiliates.
"Sections or single pages of this wiki are covered by certain licenses. If a licence notice is displayed at a given wiki page, you may use the content of this page according to the license. In case you are contributing to such a page, your contribution is covered by this licensing terms."
2. The particular page does not have any different copyright notice, but it does assert that the page is under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY).
3. The PDFs have the following notices, as Jean mentioned before:
==============================================================
"This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed below. You may
distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU General Public
License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), version 3 or later, or the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version
3.0 or later.
"All trademarks within this guide belong to their legitimate owners."
There is one chapter identified as licensed under CC-BY 3.0 only, with no dual licensing.
3.1 There are named contributors. The lists of names vary from document to document. Note that neither Oracle nor Sun are identified as contributors and neither is singled out in the copyright notice.
3.2 IMPORTANT: The feedback link is to odfauthors-discuss@.lists.odfauthors.org. Also, the PDF documents contain information about where versions of the document can be found at <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org>.
3.2 There are Acknowledgments sometimes. These can trace a fascinating history of translation and contribution back to OpenOffice.org 1.x sources. Not all of the acknowledged contributors are listed as directly-named contributors (3.1).
3.3 The documents bear the imprint of ODF Authors (sometimes OOo Authors) and direct readers to those sites to provide feedback, report problems, etc.
4. The Guides are available as PDF and ODT documents for OpenOffice 3.3. For OpenOffice 3.2, the guides are also available as wiki pages. The site also has OpenOffice.org 2.x User Guides.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 14:32
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Dennis,
The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo3.2 guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides
The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo2.x guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOoAuthors_User_Manual
That's the bulk of the material. I don't recall if any other pages are
CC-BY, but I don't think it's a lot.
You can also look for Categories: CC-BY License | Documentation
All of the relevant pages should have those categories assigned to them.
(If not, I goofed in not adding the category info.)
If it helps, here are more detailed links:
The user guides for OOo3.3 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_Chapters_ODT
The user guides for OOo3.2 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters_ODT
--Jean
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:09 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Jean,
>
> I'd like to have a closer look.
>
> Can you provide some links to some of the specific material on OpenOffice.org? And how much material do you estimate there is that is licensed in this manner.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 19:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
>
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 22:18 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> > > contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> > > agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> > > they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
> > >
> > > What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> > > Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> > > elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
> > >
> >
> > You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
> > compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
> > comment on GPL.
>
> Your note about CC-BY reached me after I sent this note to the list. At
> the time I wrote the above, I did not have that information. Sorry to
> add to the noise confusion!
>
> >
> > In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
> > Documentation License (GFDL)?
>
> Yes, I meant GPL. Here is the copyright statement from a typical user
> guide chapter:
>
> "This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
> below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
> the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
> version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."
>
> Derivative works (which would include any Apache-OOo materials based on
> these books) could therefore be licensed under either GPL or CC-BY, so
> the GPL license statement could be dropped if that's an issue.
>
> > As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> >
> > CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
> >
> > Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
> > project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
> >
> > What version are you licensing under?
>
> CC-BY 3.0 or later.
>
> --Jean
>
RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
Dennis,
The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo3.2 guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides
The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo2.x guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOoAuthors_User_Manual
That's the bulk of the material. I don't recall if any other pages are
CC-BY, but I don't think it's a lot.
You can also look for Categories: CC-BY License | Documentation
All of the relevant pages should have those categories assigned to them.
(If not, I goofed in not adding the category info.)
If it helps, here are more detailed links:
The user guides for OOo3.3 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_Chapters_ODT
The user guides for OOo3.2 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters_ODT
--Jean
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:09 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Jean,
>
> I'd like to have a closer look.
>
> Can you provide some links to some of the specific material on OpenOffice.org? And how much material do you estimate there is that is licensed in this manner.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 19:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
>
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 22:18 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> > > contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> > > agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> > > they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
> > >
> > > What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> > > Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> > > elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
> > >
> >
> > You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
> > compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
> > comment on GPL.
>
> Your note about CC-BY reached me after I sent this note to the list. At
> the time I wrote the above, I did not have that information. Sorry to
> add to the noise confusion!
>
> >
> > In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
> > Documentation License (GFDL)?
>
> Yes, I meant GPL. Here is the copyright statement from a typical user
> guide chapter:
>
> "This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
> below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
> the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
> version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."
>
> Derivative works (which would include any Apache-OOo materials based on
> these books) could therefore be licensed under either GPL or CC-BY, so
> the GPL license statement could be dropped if that's an issue.
>
> > As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> >
> > CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
> >
> > Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
> > project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
> >
> > What version are you licensing under?
>
> CC-BY 3.0 or later.
>
> --Jean
>
RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Jean,
I'd like to have a closer look.
Can you provide some links to some of the specific material on OpenOffice.org? And how much material do you estimate there is that is licensed in this manner.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 19:40
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 22:18 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> > contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> > agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> > they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
> >
> > What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> > Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> > elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
> >
>
> You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
> compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
> comment on GPL.
Your note about CC-BY reached me after I sent this note to the list. At
the time I wrote the above, I did not have that information. Sorry to
add to the noise confusion!
>
> In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
> Documentation License (GFDL)?
Yes, I meant GPL. Here is the copyright statement from a typical user
guide chapter:
"This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."
Derivative works (which would include any Apache-OOo materials based on
these books) could therefore be licensed under either GPL or CC-BY, so
the GPL license statement could be dropped if that's an issue.
> As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>
> CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
>
> Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
> project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
>
> What version are you licensing under?
CC-BY 3.0 or later.
--Jean
Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 22:18 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> > contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> > agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> > they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
> >
> > What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> > Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> > elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
> >
>
> You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
> compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
> comment on GPL.
Your note about CC-BY reached me after I sent this note to the list. At
the time I wrote the above, I did not have that information. Sorry to
add to the noise confusion!
>
> In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
> Documentation License (GFDL)?
Yes, I meant GPL. Here is the copyright statement from a typical user
guide chapter:
"This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."
Derivative works (which would include any Apache-OOo materials based on
these books) could therefore be licensed under either GPL or CC-BY, so
the GPL license statement could be dropped if that's an issue.
> As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>
> CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
>
> Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
> project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
>
> What version are you licensing under?
CC-BY 3.0 or later.
--Jean
Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 20:43 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> >> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> >> > -1
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
>> >> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're
>> >> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
>> >> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
>> >> different things.
>> >
>> > *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note quoted
>> > below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was
>> > about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I
>> > asked about.
>> >
>>
>> From licensing perspective it is the same, whether it is content in
>> wikitext or content in attachments to a wiki page. The thing that
>> would be different would be links to content on external sites.
>>
>> If that is not answering your question, maybe you should restate, with
>> a link to a specific example.
>
> The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
>
> What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
>
You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
comment on GPL.
In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL)?
As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
What version are you licensing under?
Nothing is mentioned about GFDL. It is not in the permitted or forbidden lists.
> Does this also mean that the guides cannot be part of the official
> documentation set? That's okay with me (not sure what other contributors
> think), but it seems less than ideal for the project.
>
See above. CC-BY 2.5 is acceptable.
> Examples of the existing user guides can be downloaded from this page
> and pages linked to it:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
>
> --Jean
>
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
>> >> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>> >> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>> >> >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>> >> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>> >> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>> >> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>> >> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>> >> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>> >> >>> is product documentation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>> >> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>> >> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>> >> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>> >> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>> >> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>> >> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>> >> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>> >> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>> >> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>> >> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
>> >> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
>> >> > quality, namely:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
>> >> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
>> >> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
>> >> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>> >> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>> >> >
>> >> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
>> >> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>> >> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
>> >> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
>> >> >
>> >> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
>> >> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
>> >> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>> >> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
>> >> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
>> >> > this.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
>> >> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
>> >> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
>> >> > annoyance to contributors.
>> >> >
>
>
>
Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
Hmm ..
If Oracle owns them we can include them in the grant and update te
license.
Cheers,
pedro.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:17:28 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber
<je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 20:43 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
>> <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> >> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> >> > -1
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things
>> not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same
>> treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a
>> high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis
>> Weber some time ago on this list.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
>> >> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What
>> we're
>> >> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which
>> we
>> >> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
>> >> different things.
>> >
>> > *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note
>> quoted
>> > below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer
>> was
>> > about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the
>> material I
>> > asked about.
>> >
>>
>> From licensing perspective it is the same, whether it is content in
>> wikitext or content in attachments to a wiki page. The thing that
>> would be different would be links to content on external sites.
>>
>> If that is not answering your question, maybe you should restate,
>> with
>> a link to a specific example.
>
> The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask
> if
> they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache
> license.
>
> What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on
> a
> Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
>
> Does this also mean that the guides cannot be part of the official
> documentation set? That's okay with me (not sure what other
> contributors
> think), but it seems less than ideal for the project.
>
> Examples of the existing user guides can be downloaded from this page
> and pages linked to it:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
>
> --Jean
>
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
>> >> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo +
>> OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
>> <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed
>> for our
>> >> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to
>> admins, to
>> >> >>> application developers, that documentation is product
>> documentation.
>> >> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it,
>> would cause
>> >> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If
>> the right
>> >> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is
>> essentially to
>> >> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or
>> even a
>> >> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project,
>> then it
>> >> >>> is product documentation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items
>> on the
>> >> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of
>> user
>> >> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for
>> download
>> >> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit
>> into this.
>> >> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would
>> never be
>> >> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree
>> to the
>> >> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about
>> future
>> >> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every
>> future
>> >> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign
>> the iCLA?
>> >> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights
>> (committer?) can
>> >> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not
>> necessarily
>> >> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance,
>> accountability and
>> >> > quality, namely:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but
>> these
>> >> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer
>> before they
>> >> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions
>> must be
>> >> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>> >> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>> >> >
>> >> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from
>> committers and
>> >> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>> >> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id
>> that we
>> >> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
>> >> >
>> >> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending
>> patches
>> >> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and
>> reviewed by
>> >> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>> >> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different
>> mechanism for
>> >> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to
>> enable
>> >> > this.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the
>> wiki.
>> >> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get
>> this under
>> >> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too
>> much
>> >> > annoyance to contributors.
>> >> >