You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> on 2011/08/09 06:47:03 UTC

[www] Color me Copyright-confused

I was nosing around in the web pages at http://incubator.apache.org/openoffice/www/ to understand exactly what is going on with addition of "Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation" as a footer and the inclusion of the 
<!-- Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
    contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
    this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
    [ ... ]
    -->
as HTML comments in the <head> element of pages, etc.

 1. I am not clear what principle is being applied here and what the conditions of its application might be.  (I'm not sure where there is {intended to be} a NOTICE file, either.)  [The project notes for this don't mention this particular kind of change.]

 2. I also see that this page, which is in that www sandbox too, has those modifications:
<http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/www/terms_of_use.html>.  But the content appears to be the same as this: <http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use>, so somehow the Apache copyright notice doesn't seem apt.

 3. MORE EXCITING is that the OpenOffice.org page itself is identified as having been revised on 2011-07-29 and it has this fascinating statement (also found on our www-sandbox copy):

"[4.]b. Source Code Submissions. You agree that any source code You contribute to a Project will be submitted under, and subject to, the license posted for that Project. If no license is posted, You agree that Your Submission will be governed by the Apache License, Version 2.0, which terms can be found at http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php. You acknowledge that You are responsible for including all applicable copyright notices and licenses with Your Submissions, and that You assume the risks of failing to do so, including the potential loss of Your rights to Your Submissions."

Does anyone know what this said before, when it was changed, and who changed it?  Or has it been this way pretty much all along?

 -- Dennis

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 10 August 2011 20:37, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 13:36 -0400, drew wrote:
>> if anyone wants to
>> beat me to the punch, please do, and I'll follow along then..
>
> just quick note - just subscribed to legal-discuss _at_ apache.org
>
> I'm assuming this is the correct list for our purposes.

It is. Thanks Drew.

Ross

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Correct - legal-discuss@apache.org is a publicly archived mailing list 
where the ASF Legal team works and can help answer questions.  Note that 
there is also a Legal JIRA project where people often file "bugs" about 
specific legal questions that is often used for tracking the specific 
resolution.

   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL

In this case, I'd start with a discussion, but given the breadth of OOo 
websites we'll need to cover, I imagine it'd be useful to create a JIRA 
with that specific task (i.e. reviewing an ooo-dev@ drafted TOU for 
future Apache hosted OOo website(s)).

Thanks for taking charge!

- Shane

On 8/10/2011 3:37 PM, drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 13:36 -0400, drew wrote:
>> if anyone wants to
>> beat me to the punch, please do, and I'll follow along then..
>
> just quick note - just subscribed to legal-discuss _at_ apache.org
>
> I'm assuming this is the correct list for our purposes.
>
>
>

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 13:36 -0400, drew wrote:
> if anyone wants to
> beat me to the punch, please do, and I'll follow along then.. 

just quick note - just subscribed to legal-discuss _at_ apache.org

I'm assuming this is the correct list for our purposes.

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 17:43 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 10 August 2011 17:40, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > Well, since I've poked my nose in here on TOU and such - if no one minds
> > I would offer to take this subject over to the Apache legal ML, to
> > solicit help with re-writing the TOU page found on the OO.o main site
> > today, for use on the user facing websites going forward.
> 
> Please do (go ahead with lazy consensus, meaning we are all happy for
> you to do the work for us ;-)
> 
<snip>
> 
> I look forward to watching and learning from the discussion on that
> list. Thanks.

Alright - the last day or two I've continued looking at different Apache
project sites, OpenEJB, SpamAssasian and a few of the incubator projects
amongst them for TOU/PP examples.

There is a good inventory of websites(services) for OO.o up on the
planning wiki already.

I think the sites break down reasonably into two groups:

[x].oo.o
extension.s.oo.o
template.s.oo.o
wiki.s.oo.o
user.s.oo.o

being one group - it also seems reasonable to look at adding
incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/
to that group

Then there is
pootle.s.oo.o
tools.s.oo.o
download.s.oo.o

not sure what all is coming, but I suspect these sites may need a
separate TOU/PP.

Anyway, I've already spoken for my time this evening and plan to put
this all into an email for the legal list tomorrow - if anyone wants to
beat me to the punch, please do, and I'll follow along then..

Best wishes,

//drew

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 10 August 2011 17:40, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:

...

> Well, since I've poked my nose in here on TOU and such - if no one minds
> I would offer to take this subject over to the Apache legal ML, to
> solicit help with re-writing the TOU page found on the OO.o main site
> today, for use on the user facing websites going forward.

Please do (go ahead with lazy consensus, meaning we are all happy for
you to do the work for us ;-)

> For that
> matter perhaps someone on the legal list will offer to take this on as a
> task for us.

I'm sure they'll help you navigate ASF policy, but they are unlikely
to take it on in its entirety.

I look forward to watching and learning from the discussion on that
list. Thanks.

Ross

RE: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 10:02 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Dave,
> 
> I've been pondering this some more.  (I saw Drew's post on the Apache-license wording being there since at least April.)
> 
> I don't know about injection of the Apache license notice in <head> comments, but I am definitely concerned that we are adding a "Copyright 2011 Apache Software Foundation" at the bottom of the pages that are from a third party.  This is the closest guidance I could find: <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html>, and it mentions that a terms-of-use for web sites is forthcoming.  We may need to ask about that.  I am pretty sure we are not planning to include these web pages into a release itself.
> 
> I think we need to talk to legal-/license-discuss before we put more ink on our rubber stamp.

Howdy,

Well, since I've poked my nose in here on TOU and such - if no one minds
I would offer to take this subject over to the Apache legal ML, to
solicit help with re-writing the TOU page found on the OO.o main site
today, for use on the user facing websites going forward. For that
matter perhaps someone on the legal list will offer to take this on as a
task for us.

<big snip>

Thanks,

//drew

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 10 August 2011 15:37, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> That wasn't me. My view is we don't mess with notices (or their absence) and licenses until after we have guidance from legal-/license-discuss, not the other way around.  This is not a CtR deal in my opinion.

Apologies for misrepresenting your position - unintentional of course.

> Also, apparently an Apache Terms of Use for web sites is forthcoming, and we are definitely in need of that and how it applies to a third-party site that we propose to migrate/operate.

Perhaps someone here at OO.o can go over to the legal-discuss@ list
and offer to push this forwards.

"forthcoming" in the ASF can sometimes mean that it has been agreed
that it is needed and we're waiting for someone to take the lead. I'm
not sure if that is the case here, but a quick question on
legal-discuss will reveal all.

Ross

>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: Thanks for the analysis, Ross.  It aligns with my limited experience with Apache and the available materials.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 05:07
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Note that I've snipped the bit where Denis says he intends to run it
> past legal once everything is in place. So it is safe to sit and wait
> unless you are worried.
>
> Ross
>
>



-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

RE: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
That wasn't me. My view is we don't mess with notices (or their absence) and licenses until after we have guidance from legal-/license-discuss, not the other way around.  This is not a CtR deal in my opinion.

Also, apparently an Apache Terms of Use for web sites is forthcoming, and we are definitely in need of that and how it applies to a third-party site that we propose to migrate/operate.

 - Dennis

PS: Thanks for the analysis, Ross.  It aligns with my limited experience with Apache and the available materials.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 05:07
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

[ ... ]

Note that I've snipped the bit where Denis says he intends to run it
past legal once everything is in place. So it is safe to sit and wait
unless you are worried.

Ross

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 9 August 2011 18:47, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> I've been pondering this some more.  (I saw Drew's post on the Apache-license wording being there since at least April.)
>>
>> I don't know about injection of the Apache license notice in <head> comments, but I am definitely concerned that we are adding a "Copyright 2011 Apache Software Foundation" at the bottom of the pages that are from a third party.  This is the closest guidance I could find: <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html>, and it mentions that a terms-of-use for web sites is forthcoming.  We may need to ask about that.  I am pretty sure we are not planning to include these web pages into a release itself.
>>
>
> The Apache home page says in its footer:  "Copyright © 2011 The Apache
> Software Foundation, Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0."
>
> IANAL, but that in itself only makes sense to me for pages where
> either 1) the work was authored by Apache employees (a "work for
> hire") or 2) Content to which Apache was assigned the copyright.

Since this is a point of contention in some quarters I just want to
point out that the ASF never has copyrights assigned to it (in any
materials) we have licences to use peoples copyrighted materials, but
the copyright always remains with the individual.

This is the case for the very few contractors we use as well.

> But those should be quite rare conditions.  In the typical case, we
> each individually (or our employers) own the copyright, and via the
> iCLA and the Apache 2.0 license we give Apache (and each other and our
> users) a license to use, modify and redistribute the content.  But I
> don't see where we've assigned Apache the copyright.

Just to repeat *nobody* has assigned any copyright to the ASF, ever.

> Maybe Apache is claiming copyright on derived work that consists of
> the the entire page, so the whole mashup, not just the content, but
> the visual design, color schema layout, the entire visual combination?

IANAL but I have always understood that to be the case. It is
copyright in the collated works of all the individual copyright
holders.

If people in the community are concerned about this and are not
reassured by my assurance that nobody is assigning copyright to the
ASF and the copyright notices do not intend to assert ownership over
any individuals IP then someone needs to ask on legal-discuss@a.o in
order to get an official statement from the legal PMC.

Note that I've snipped the bit where Denis says he intends to run it
past legal once everything is in place. So it is safe to sit and wait
unless you are worried.

Ross

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I've been pondering this some more.  (I saw Drew's post on the Apache-license wording being there since at least April.)
>
> I don't know about injection of the Apache license notice in <head> comments, but I am definitely concerned that we are adding a "Copyright 2011 Apache Software Foundation" at the bottom of the pages that are from a third party.  This is the closest guidance I could find: <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html>, and it mentions that a terms-of-use for web sites is forthcoming.  We may need to ask about that.  I am pretty sure we are not planning to include these web pages into a release itself.
>

The Apache home page says in its footer:  "Copyright © 2011 The Apache
Software Foundation, Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0."

IANAL, but that in itself only makes sense to me for pages where
either 1) the work was authored by Apache employees (a "work for
hire") or 2) Content to which Apache was assigned the copyright.

But those should be quite rare conditions.  In the typical case, we
each individually (or our employers) own the copyright, and via the
iCLA and the Apache 2.0 license we give Apache (and each other and our
users) a license to use, modify and redistribute the content.  But I
don't see where we've assigned Apache the copyright.

Maybe Apache is claiming copyright on derived work that consists of
the the entire page, so the whole mashup, not just the content, but
the visual design, color schema layout, the entire visual combination?

> I think we need to talk to legal-/license-discuss before we put more ink on our rubber stamp.
>

When we have the headers and footers and privacy and terms of use done
to our satisfaction (consensus of the PPMC) then we will obviously
need to run this by branding and legal.

> Please add this part to the work items you've listed already.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 22:23
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
>> I was nosing around in the web pages at http://incubator.apache.org/openoffice/www/ to understand exactly what is going on with addition of "Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation" as a footer and the inclusion of the
>> <!-- Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>>    contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
>>    this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>>    [ ... ]
>>    -->
>> as HTML comments in the <head> element of pages, etc.
>
> We are now able to wrap html with the Apache CMS. See recent commits to the templates and lib/view.pm and path.pm files. Next step is to apply the framework that I suggested.
>
>>
>> 1. I am not clear what principle is being applied here and what the conditions of its application might be.  (I'm not sure where there is {intended to be} a NOTICE file, either.)  [The project notes for this don't mention this particular kind of change.]
>
> We are doing preliminary conversions. We are yet to consistently apply licensing, etc.
>
> I am not clear on what the best approach is to converting the various javascript and css files used on the OOo Kenai to the Apache CMS. Nevertheless progress has been made.
>
> If we need a NOTICE we can add it.
>
>> 2. I also see that this page, which is in that www sandbox too, has those modifications:
>> <http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/www/terms_of_use.html>.  But the content appears to be the same as this: <http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use>, so somehow the Apache copyright notice doesn't seem apt.
>
> Yes, this is content that ought to be replaced by the work that Drew has started on one thread, and I have mentioned on another  It is irrelevant if this is converted to mdtext or kept as html , either will work. We can easily adapt the process to exclude in the sidenav.html for certain mdtext files. We would add a header variable to the mdtext and then check for it.
>
>> 3. MORE EXCITING is that the OpenOffice.org page itself is identified as having been revised on 2011-07-29 and it has this fascinating statement (also found on our www-sandbox copy):
>>
>> "[4.]b. Source Code Submissions. You agree that any source code You contribute to a Project will be submitted under, and subject to, the license posted for that Project. If no license is posted, You agree that Your Submission will be governed by the Apache License, Version 2.0, which terms can be found at http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php. You acknowledge that You are responsible for including all applicable copyright notices and licenses with Your Submissions, and that You assume the risks of failing to do so, including the potential loss of Your rights to Your Submissions."
>
> You will need to examine the kenai web repos to see who that was, I suspect someone on the ooo-dev list did it, but it is in our svn now! We can start making the new www.openoffice.org now!
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/www/ is the place to create the all inclusive terms of use, privacy policy, and the rest to be linked to from all of the future footers.
>
>> Does anyone know what this said before, when it was changed, and who changed it?  Or has it been this way pretty much all along?
>
> Check the Kenai svn (ooo/trunk/tools/dev/kenai2website.sh), or Kay, or someone else?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> -- Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>
>

RE: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Dave,

I've been pondering this some more.  (I saw Drew's post on the Apache-license wording being there since at least April.)

I don't know about injection of the Apache license notice in <head> comments, but I am definitely concerned that we are adding a "Copyright 2011 Apache Software Foundation" at the bottom of the pages that are from a third party.  This is the closest guidance I could find: <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html>, and it mentions that a terms-of-use for web sites is forthcoming.  We may need to ask about that.  I am pretty sure we are not planning to include these web pages into a release itself.

I think we need to talk to legal-/license-discuss before we put more ink on our rubber stamp.

Please add this part to the work items you've listed already.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 22:23
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Hi Dennis,

> I was nosing around in the web pages at http://incubator.apache.org/openoffice/www/ to understand exactly what is going on with addition of "Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation" as a footer and the inclusion of the 
> <!-- Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>    contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
>    this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>    [ ... ]
>    -->
> as HTML comments in the <head> element of pages, etc.

We are now able to wrap html with the Apache CMS. See recent commits to the templates and lib/view.pm and path.pm files. Next step is to apply the framework that I suggested.

> 
> 1. I am not clear what principle is being applied here and what the conditions of its application might be.  (I'm not sure where there is {intended to be} a NOTICE file, either.)  [The project notes for this don't mention this particular kind of change.]

We are doing preliminary conversions. We are yet to consistently apply licensing, etc.

I am not clear on what the best approach is to converting the various javascript and css files used on the OOo Kenai to the Apache CMS. Nevertheless progress has been made.

If we need a NOTICE we can add it.

> 2. I also see that this page, which is in that www sandbox too, has those modifications:
> <http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/www/terms_of_use.html>.  But the content appears to be the same as this: <http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use>, so somehow the Apache copyright notice doesn't seem apt.

Yes, this is content that ought to be replaced by the work that Drew has started on one thread, and I have mentioned on another  It is irrelevant if this is converted to mdtext or kept as html , either will work. We can easily adapt the process to exclude in the sidenav.html for certain mdtext files. We would add a header variable to the mdtext and then check for it.

> 3. MORE EXCITING is that the OpenOffice.org page itself is identified as having been revised on 2011-07-29 and it has this fascinating statement (also found on our www-sandbox copy):
> 
> "[4.]b. Source Code Submissions. You agree that any source code You contribute to a Project will be submitted under, and subject to, the license posted for that Project. If no license is posted, You agree that Your Submission will be governed by the Apache License, Version 2.0, which terms can be found at http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php. You acknowledge that You are responsible for including all applicable copyright notices and licenses with Your Submissions, and that You assume the risks of failing to do so, including the potential loss of Your rights to Your Submissions."

You will need to examine the kenai web repos to see who that was, I suspect someone on the ooo-dev list did it, but it is in our svn now! We can start making the new www.openoffice.org now!

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/www/ is the place to create the all inclusive terms of use, privacy policy, and the rest to be linked to from all of the future footers.

> Does anyone know what this said before, when it was changed, and who changed it?  Or has it been this way pretty much all along?

Check the Kenai svn (ooo/trunk/tools/dev/kenai2website.sh), or Kay, or someone else?

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -- Dennis
> 
> 
>

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Dennis,

> I was nosing around in the web pages at http://incubator.apache.org/openoffice/www/ to understand exactly what is going on with addition of "Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation" as a footer and the inclusion of the 
> <!-- Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>    contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
>    this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>    [ ... ]
>    -->
> as HTML comments in the <head> element of pages, etc.

We are now able to wrap html with the Apache CMS. See recent commits to the templates and lib/view.pm and path.pm files. Next step is to apply the framework that I suggested.

> 
> 1. I am not clear what principle is being applied here and what the conditions of its application might be.  (I'm not sure where there is {intended to be} a NOTICE file, either.)  [The project notes for this don't mention this particular kind of change.]

We are doing preliminary conversions. We are yet to consistently apply licensing, etc.

I am not clear on what the best approach is to converting the various javascript and css files used on the OOo Kenai to the Apache CMS. Nevertheless progress has been made.

If we need a NOTICE we can add it.

> 2. I also see that this page, which is in that www sandbox too, has those modifications:
> <http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/www/terms_of_use.html>.  But the content appears to be the same as this: <http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use>, so somehow the Apache copyright notice doesn't seem apt.

Yes, this is content that ought to be replaced by the work that Drew has started on one thread, and I have mentioned on another  It is irrelevant if this is converted to mdtext or kept as html , either will work. We can easily adapt the process to exclude in the sidenav.html for certain mdtext files. We would add a header variable to the mdtext and then check for it.

> 3. MORE EXCITING is that the OpenOffice.org page itself is identified as having been revised on 2011-07-29 and it has this fascinating statement (also found on our www-sandbox copy):
> 
> "[4.]b. Source Code Submissions. You agree that any source code You contribute to a Project will be submitted under, and subject to, the license posted for that Project. If no license is posted, You agree that Your Submission will be governed by the Apache License, Version 2.0, which terms can be found at http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php. You acknowledge that You are responsible for including all applicable copyright notices and licenses with Your Submissions, and that You assume the risks of failing to do so, including the potential loss of Your rights to Your Submissions."

You will need to examine the kenai web repos to see who that was, I suspect someone on the ooo-dev list did it, but it is in our svn now! We can start making the new www.openoffice.org now!

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/www/ is the place to create the all inclusive terms of use, privacy policy, and the rest to be linked to from all of the future footers.

> Does anyone know what this said before, when it was changed, and who changed it?  Or has it been this way pretty much all along?

Check the Kenai svn (ooo/trunk/tools/dev/kenai2website.sh), or Kay, or someone else?

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -- Dennis
> 
> 
>

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 21:47 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I was nosing around in the web pages at http://incubator.apache.org/openoffice/www/ to understand exactly what is going on with addition of "Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation" as a footer and the inclusion of the 
> <!-- Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
>     contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
>     this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
>     [ ... ]
>     -->
> as HTML comments in the <head> element of pages, etc.
> 
>  1. I am not clear what principle is being applied here and what the conditions of its application might be.  (I'm not sure where there is {intended to be} a NOTICE file, either.)  [The project notes for this don't mention this particular kind of change.]
> 
>  2. I also see that this page, which is in that www sandbox too, has those modifications:
> <http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/www/terms_of_use.html>.  But the content appears to be the same as this: <http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use>, so somehow the Apache copyright notice doesn't seem apt.
> 
>  3. MORE EXCITING is that the OpenOffice.org page itself is identified as having been revised on 2011-07-29 and it has this fascinating statement (also found on our www-sandbox copy):
> 
> "[4.]b. Source Code Submissions. You agree that any source code You contribute to a Project will be submitted under, and subject to, the license posted for that Project. If no license is posted, You agree that Your Submission will be governed by the Apache License, Version 2.0, which terms can be found at http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php. You acknowledge that You are responsible for including all applicable copyright notices and licenses with Your Submissions, and that You assume the risks of failing to do so, including the potential loss of Your rights to Your Submissions."
> 
> Does anyone know what this said before, when it was changed, and who changed it?  Or has it been this way pretty much all along?

Hi Dennis,


Looking at the vcs for the website, the Apache license wording has been
there, on the TOU page
http://openoffice.org/projects/www/sources/webcontent/content/terms_of_use.html?rev=54  for at least 5 months. (The move to kenai time frame if I'm not mistaken, which I could be, easily)

//drew

Re: [www] Color me Copyright-confused

Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org>wrote:

>  3. MORE EXCITING is that the OpenOffice.org page itself is identified as
> having been revised on 2011-07-29 and it has this fascinating statement
> (also found on our www-sandbox copy):
>
> "[4.]b. Source Code Submissions. You agree that any source code You
> contribute to a Project will be submitted under, and subject to, the license
> posted for that Project. If no license is posted, You agree that Your
> Submission will be governed by the Apache License, Version 2.0, which terms
> can be found at http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php. You
> acknowledge that You are responsible for including all applicable copyright
> notices and licenses with Your Submissions, and that You assume the risks of
> failing to do so, including the potential loss of Your rights to Your
> Submissions."
>
> Does anyone know what this said before, when it was changed, and who
> changed it?  Or has it been this way pretty much all along?
>

I'm not sure as I no longer have the necessary mail archive for reference,
but I suspect this language may have been inserted by Sun when we tidied up
the web site ToS we had inherited from CollabNet a few years ago.

It is intended to make sure that code contributions are always under an
identifiable open source license, and we picked AL2 because that was my
recommendation as the best permissive open source license. Since (unlike
assignment) licensing does not need a physical signature under the laws we
most cared about, including this clause in the ToS gave the same effect as
the Apache ICLA but without the  return of a piece of paper.

S.