You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2011/06/02 18:19:25 UTC
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
On 6/1/2011 10:37 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
>
>> Other Works
>>
>> * You can use the Creative Commons Attribution License
>> ("Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5").
>> We only accept work under this license that is non-editable and for
>> which
>> there is no editable version that can be contributed to the project.
>>
>
>> This last item concerns me. How much of the contribution is unusable due
>> to the "Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5" tag, which would appear to be a category
>> X license to ASF works? (I couldn't find a corresponding Jira in the legal
>> discuss tracker.)
>
> The CC was generated for non-code contributions as far as I know. I would
> need to have that confirmed.
That is my understanding. But if we ask legal-discuss, all contributions at
the ASF must be editable (one pillar of the Open Source Definition) and must
allow derivative works ... IOW, under the Apache License.
So I simply need to understand the scope of the CC elements of OOo which will
need to be entirely replaced.
(As I read CC-AND, even translations of such works pose a problem?)
....
On 6/2/2011 4:24 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Were all contributions to OpenOffice.org under copyright assignment (via
>> employment or specific copyright assignment agreement)? How many other
>> independent copyright holders would have to assent to the license change?
>> How much non-assenting code would have to be eliminated and potentially
>> replaced?
>
> The answers to these questions are not known at this time, and will
> need to be resolved before exiting incubation.
Correcting us both, I believe this is known, to the extent that Oracle
holds copyright or joint copyright to all code and is in the position to
license as they see fit (to the ASF or otherwise). I now understand from
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html that the 80/20 of my concerns are
solved (my list posts came across out-of-sequence), Oracle conveys their
copyright license for the ASF to licenses as we will (AL) for the bulk
of the existing work.
I simply need some understanding of the scope of the CC-AND works. Are
we talking fundamental documentation? Nice-to-have additions/examples?
Have prospective committers stepped up to replace the necessary elements?
AFAICT, our best incubation process may be to avoid checking in any of
the CC-AND contributions within any initial svn import (and the second
best option would be import-and-immediate-purge). No derivatives are
allowed, ergo it will be very challenging to show that the replacements
are not derivative, and starting from scratch is starting from scratch.
I guess I've seen too many failures to launch at incubator to support any
more projects coming in which are not in the realistic position to publish
working results as AL works. So without these answers, I personally would
vote -1 on such a new project. You can look at any number which required
multi-year (half decade) of incubation without being able to graduate or
release due to simply the licensing/dependency challenges.
The incubator is not supposed to be this hard, and shouldn't be a parking
lot for complex works with complex licensing problems. If major problems
can be addressed, they are best addressed on incubation acceptance, leaving
only minor issues to address during graduation. If major problems are
going to be difficult to address, the incubator needs to think twice before
accepting the podling, IMHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 6/2/2011 11:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> We know the *precise* list of files that we have rights to. They are
> explicitly specified in the software grant recorded by the Secretary.
>
> For all other files not listed: we have no special rights. Those files
> would be under their original license, terms, and copyrights.
>
> There isn't much gray area here. The biggest problem is how to replace
> the stuff that we don't have rights to. And that is a problem for the
> podling's community to solve.
And it is not unfair to ask if the podling, once accepted, can reasonably
be expected to solve the problem and in some reasonable timeframe to allow
them to create an Apache release, because previous efforts have had very
mixed success. So I'm asking upfront if this is realistic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:19, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>...
> I guess I've seen too many failures to launch at incubator to support any
> more projects coming in which are not in the realistic position to publish
> working results as AL works. So without these answers, I personally would
> vote -1 on such a new project. You can look at any number which required
> multi-year (half decade) of incubation without being able to graduate or
> release due to simply the licensing/dependency challenges.
>
> The incubator is not supposed to be this hard, and shouldn't be a parking
> lot for complex works with complex licensing problems. If major problems
> can be addressed, they are best addressed on incubation acceptance, leaving
> only minor issues to address during graduation. If major problems are
> going to be difficult to address, the incubator needs to think twice before
> accepting the podling, IMHO.
We know the *precise* list of files that we have rights to. They are
explicitly specified in the software grant recorded by the Secretary.
For all other files not listed: we have no special rights. Those files
would be under their original license, terms, and copyrights.
There isn't much gray area here. The biggest problem is how to replace
the stuff that we don't have rights to. And that is a problem for the
podling's community to solve.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic for Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it is at least as permissive as modified BSD) and it allows derivative works, of course.
>
> We renamed the "Apache Software License, v1.1" to "Apache License,
> v2.0" for the basic reason that we wanted to cover documentation, too.
> AFAIK, all documentation coming out of the ASF is licensed under ALv2.
>
> Would we be okay with CC licenses? Unsure, to be honest. I think that
> we certainly could be okay with it: certain forms of the CC license
> palette match our permissive ideals, and they are also modern,
> well-considered licenses. I'm not sure the question has come up, so we
> have no policy that I'm aware of.
CC-by 2.5 is listed as acceptable:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
I have no reason to believe that 3.0 would pose a problem.
> Cheers,
> -g
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic for Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it is at least as permissive as modified BSD) and it allows derivative works, of course.
We renamed the "Apache Software License, v1.1" to "Apache License,
v2.0" for the basic reason that we wanted to cover documentation, too.
AFAIK, all documentation coming out of the ASF is licensed under ALv2.
Would we be okay with CC licenses? Unsure, to be honest. I think that
we certainly could be okay with it: certain forms of the CC license
palette match our permissive ideals, and they are also modern,
well-considered licenses. I'm not sure the question has come up, so we
have no policy that I'm aware of.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic for Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it is at least as permissive as modified BSD) and it allows derivative works, of course.
I'm not clear on the status of the separately-installed HelpPack on Windows. I don't recall a license click-through for that installation, and there is no license information in the help content itself.
There is also on-line help at locations such as <http://help.libreoffice.org/>. I don't see any notices or license information.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Schnabel [mailto:Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 15:38
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Hi William, *
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Von: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> An: general@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > The CC was generated for non-code contributions as far as I know. I
> > would need to have that confirmed.
>
> That is my understanding. But if we ask legal-discuss, all
> contributions at the ASF must be editable (one pillar of the Open
> Source Definition) and must allow derivative works ... IOW, under the
> Apache License.
>
> So I simply need to understand the scope of the CC elements of OOo
> which will need to be entirely replaced.
Yes, CC has been introduced for documentation - or I would rather say marketing / promotion materials (I've been member of the OOo community council when this was introduced). So you won't find CC elements in the code repository. And even in website or wiki content I would not expect to see many CC stuff, at least nothing really important.
But this raises another question - does Oracle donate the code only or will ASF also get the contents of the website, wiki, translation database (wich has some more information than what you see in the code), ooo-specific tooling (OOo used to have some web portals to support development, qa, release and documentation processes) etc.
reegards,
Andre
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 01:07, Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo extensions?
>>> Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, Professional
>>> Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
>>
>> Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with clear
>> provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of licensing and
>> other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit at a later stage of
>> the project.
>
> Thanks for the clarifications, Andrew!
+1
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 01:07, Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo extensions?
>> Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, Professional
>> Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
>
> Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with clear
> provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of licensing and
> other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit at a later stage of
> the project.
Thanks for the clarifications, Andrew!
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com> wrote on 06/04/2011 01:07:36 AM:
>
>
> > Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo
> > extensions? Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher,
> > Professional Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
> Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with
> clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of
> licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit
> at a later stage of the project.
>
Similarly, IBM has a range of OpenOffice feature, enhancements,
performance improvements, accessibility work, interoperability work, etc.,
that we want to contribute to the project, from our work on Symphony. But
I agree with Andrew, let's get the base build up and running, have that
milestone success first, get to a release of an IP-cleared product, and
then move on from there.
Of course, the project's PMC will determine the priorities and ordering of
this work. It is possible, for example, that other members of the
community might have items to contribute that are deemed more important to
integrate first. We'll work that through the project.
Crawl. Walk. Run. Fly.
Regards,
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
> Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo
> extensions? Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher,
> Professional Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with
clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of
licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit
at a later stage of the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by Lee Fisher <bl...@gmail.com>.
> But this raises another question - does Oracle donate the code only or
> will ASF also get the contents of the website, wiki, translation database
> (wich has some more information than what you see in the code),
> ooo-specific tooling (OOo used to have some web portals to support
> development, qa, release and documentation processes) etc.
Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo extensions?
Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, Professional
Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
PS: For me, much of the OOo Extensions web site appears currently
unmaintained. Their nginx (!) server is returning 502 (Bad Gateway) for
searches, specific extensions, and browsing beyond page 1. So I can't
build a complete list of Oracle extensions.
http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
> But this raises another question - does Oracle donate the code only or
> will ASF also get the contents of the website, wiki, translation database
> (wich has some more information than what you see in the code), ooo-specific tooling (OOo used to have some web portals to support
> development, qa, release and documentation processes) etc.
>
>
It is Oracle's intent to find a good home for all of the content of the
OOo web site. Some of the content may move to Apache, such as
documentation. Other content, such as mailing lists, may be publicly
archived. The transferring of material to Apache will depend on
relevance and licensing. The goal here is to both save the history, and
to get as much as possible of the current info across into the new
project home and licensed under ALv2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Posted by Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>.
Hi William, *
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Von: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> An: general@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > The CC was generated for non-code contributions as far as I know. I
> > would need to have that confirmed.
>
> That is my understanding. But if we ask legal-discuss, all
> contributions at the ASF must be editable (one pillar of the Open
> Source Definition) and must allow derivative works ... IOW, under the
> Apache License.
>
> So I simply need to understand the scope of the CC elements of OOo which
> will need to be entirely replaced.
Yes, CC has been introduced for documentation - or I would rather say
marketing / promotion materials (I've been member of the OOo community
council when this was introduced). So you won't find CC elements in the
code repository. And even in website or wiki content I would not expect
to see many CC stuff, at least nothing really important.
But this raises another question - does Oracle donate the code only or
will ASF also get the contents of the website, wiki, translation database
(wich has some more information than what you see in the code), ooo-specific tooling (OOo used to have some web portals to support
development, qa, release and documentation processes) etc.
reegards,
Andre
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org