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 2011/06/14 18:05:20 UTC
RE: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
There is this one:
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
And that leads to this interesting one:
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
None of those are what I would call permissive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 05:55
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: fpe@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project
What will happen to the existing wiki at
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org
which has quite some content (including
the main documentation pieces)?
Would we maintain two wikis or merge
into Apache infrastructure? How can we
migrate existing content?
I'd be eager to help with migration efforts (I
have admin rights on the wiki).
Frank
> +1 on the wiki request.
>
> Mentors,some advice, please, on how we make this happen? Is things
> something that PPMC members have rights to do? Or do we ask the IPMC? Or do
> we enter a request in the Infrastructure list? Or some Infrastructure issue
> tracking system?
>
> I'm volunteering to do the leg work (or is it finger work?) if someone can
> point me in the right direction.
>
> Also, what level of approval in the project is typically needed for routine
> requests like this? Is a +1 with no objections sufficient? Or do projects
> typically have a more elaborate voting procedure for this?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Rob
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Raphael Bircher<r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi at all
>>
>> On http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html there is no
>> wiki emptry. We should use the incubator wiki to collect informations, or we
>> get a seperate wiki for OOo?
>>
>> If we have to use the incubator wike, how we have to marke OOo pages. It is
>> ok, if every site beginns with "OOo"?
>>
>> Greetings Raphael
>> --
>> My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
>>
>
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
Am 14.06.2011 19:50, schrieb Greg Stein:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
> <fr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>>
>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on visiting
>>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>>>
>>> There is this one:
>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
>>>
>>> And that leads to this interesting one:
>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
>>>
>>> None of those are what I would call permissive.
>>
>> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually donates
>> the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document equivalent of it)
>> as well. Same holds for the website content.
>
> There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
>
> The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
I see, thanky for the clarification.
> If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content, then
> they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we can
> license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
Large parts of the docs content already is licensed under CC-BY,
basically anything that comes from the ODFAuthors (was: OOAuthors)
group. The rest is under PDL mostly.
So would we best move everything under CC-BY or rather prefer AL?
Frank
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Thorsten Behrens <th...@documentfoundation.org>.
Should we maybe move that over to legal-discuss?
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I think that's reading too much into the Copyright Notice.
>
> The notice is not enough to determine what portions are under whose copyright. It is *not* all under Oracle copyright. In fact, I suspect the only part that is will be from Sun and Oracle employees (as work for hire) and perhaps others who signed CLAs (although the terms don't require one for the site, including the wiki).
>
> That formula notice is not enough for Oracle to act as the holder of copyrights that were in no way transferred by the other contributors. (CLAs are not required under the general site terms and definitely not for wiki contributions.)
>
> Assuming that the terms can be held to apply to the wiki (there is no notice on the wiki and no click-through with regard to the terms that I've seen), all anyone can do (including you or I) is sublicense and that is not the same thing. It is nice that the terms of use assert a default permissive license, but that is difficult to apply to the wiki also because people are allowed to (1) attach their own copyright notices and, as we have seen, (2) assert less permissive licenses by signing up on that special list.
>
> Recall that, in the US and I assume elsewhere, copyright must be explicitly transferred in writing except for the work-for-hire case.
>
> In short, the wiki is a mess. IMHO as we like to say.
>
> And, IANAL, but I would love to play one on television.
>
> - Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 22:01
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: fpe@openoffice.org
> Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>
> > Agreed where Oracle has the exclusive copyright. My only concern is
> > that those other-license pages might not be under Oracle copyright
> > and we will need to find out.
>
> As I mentioned in the reply to Thorsten's mail, according to
> the copyright page, Oracle co-owns the copyright to all wiki
> content, unless you dispute the validity of that statement as such.
>
> > I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution flag
>
> And rightly so.
>
> > -- another matter to check into.
>
> Frank
>
> > - Dennis
> >
> > PS: I am working to break myself of the convenient but misleading
> > term, "relicensing," since only the owner of the copyright can set
> > license terms and offer multiple (non-exclusive) licenses. There is
> > no downstream "relicensing." What happens is more nuanced and
> > relicensing appears not to be an appropriate term.
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters
> > [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14,
> > 2011 13:09 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the
> > project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
> >
> >
> >> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
> >> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an
> >> individual-page basis.
> >
> > That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the wiki has
> > traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle remedy this by (as
> > copyright holder) relicensing the content under AL like done with the
> > source?
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein
> >> [mailto:gstein@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To:
> >> ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the project -
> >> wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
> >> <fr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> >>>>
> >>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on
> >>>> visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is this one:
> >>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> And that leads to this interesting one:
> >>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> None of those are what I would call permissive.
> >>>
> >>> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually
> >>> donates the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document
> >>> equivalent of it) as well. Same holds for the website content.
> >>
> >> There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
> >>
> >> The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
> >>
> >> If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content,
> >> then they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we
> >> can license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
> >>
> >> Cheers, -g
> >>
> >
>
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
> Ah, so it is handled as a category. Nice.
We were using many IMO elegant methods of using
the Mediawiki extensions, like implementing
"living" TOCs using templates. I'm a MW fanboy.
If we can get a MW user wiki set up (I'd be willing
to help) for Apache OOo I would very much appreciate that.
I found Confluence a little clumsy last time I worked
with it but that is a while ago. Sun used to use
Confluence for product documentation.
Frank
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 06:41
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: fpe@openoffice.org
> Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>
>
>> I agree about letting the lawyers deal with the IP aspect of this.
>>
>> Where do you see any CC-by license statements in or about the Wiki?
>> I haven't found such a thing, and certainly not in the terms of use
>> for contributions to the overall site.
>
> Here is a list of CC-BY pages:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Category:CC-BY_License
>
> Frank
>
RE: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Ah, so it is handled as a category. Nice.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 06:41
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: fpe@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
> I agree about letting the lawyers deal with the IP aspect of this.
>
> Where do you see any CC-by license statements in or about the Wiki?
> I haven't found such a thing, and certainly not in the terms of use
> for contributions to the overall site.
Here is a list of CC-BY pages:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Category:CC-BY_License
Frank
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
> I agree about letting the lawyers deal with the IP aspect of this.
>
> Where do you see any CC-by license statements in or about the Wiki?
> I haven't found such a thing, and certainly not in the terms of use
> for contributions to the overall site.
Here is a list of CC-BY pages:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Category:CC-BY_License
Frank
RE: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I agree about letting the lawyers deal with the IP aspect of this.
Where do you see any CC-by license statements in or about the Wiki? I haven't found such a thing, and certainly not in the terms of use for contributions to the overall site.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 01:10
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: fpe@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
[ ... ]
The situation is probably more complex since the physical
location of the wiki server is not the US, IIRC. I am not sure
whether copyright assignment (or the equivalent in the corresponding
jurisdiction) can happen implicitly, or if transfer-in-writing
is just a cya measure to make it easily enforceable. To be honest,
I don't want to dive too deep into this.
> In short, the wiki is a mess. IMHO as we like to say.
Absolutely. A mess. I second that emotion.
But rather than spending our energy solving this legal problem or
pay lawyers to do it, can we find ways to save wiki content that
seem to be perfectly legal?
(1) All pages that are explicitly licensed under CC-BY should be
straightforward. Since it's not an SA license we should be
able to relicense under AL (or just stick with CC-BY if this
is acceptable). Many of those pages come from the talented folks
of ODFAuthors and we may also just ask them to put it under
AL for reuse at Apache OOo.
(2) All pages originally by Sun/Oracle can undoubtfully be
relicensed.
[ ... ]
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
> I think that's reading too much into the Copyright Notice.
>
> The notice is not enough to determine what portions are under whose
> copyright. It is *not* all under Oracle copyright. In fact, I
> suspect the only part that is will be from Sun and Oracle employees
> (as work for hire) and perhaps others who signed CLAs (although the
> terms don't require one for the site, including the wiki).
>
> That formula notice is not enough for Oracle to act as the holder of
> copyrights that were in no way transferred by the other contributors.
> (CLAs are not required under the general site terms and definitely
> not for wiki contributions.)
>
> Assuming that the terms can be held to apply to the wiki (there is no
> notice on the wiki and no click-through with regard to the terms that
> I've seen), all anyone can do (including you or I) is sublicense and
> that is not the same thing. It is nice that the terms of use assert
> a default permissive license, but that is difficult to apply to the
> wiki also because people are allowed to (1) attach their own
> copyright notices and, as we have seen, (2) assert less permissive
> licenses by signing up on that special list.
>
> Recall that, in the US and I assume elsewhere, copyright must be
> explicitly transferred in writing except for the work-for-hire case.
The situation is probably more complex since the physical
location of the wiki server is not the US, IIRC. I am not sure
whether copyright assignment (or the equivalent in the corresponding
jurisdiction) can happen implicitly, or if transfer-in-writing
is just a cya measure to make it easily enforceable. To be honest,
I don't want to dive too deep into this.
> In short, the wiki is a mess. IMHO as we like to say.
Absolutely. A mess. I second that emotion.
But rather than spending our energy solving this legal problem or
pay lawyers to do it, can we find ways to save wiki content that
seem to be perfectly legal?
(1) All pages that are explicitly licensed under CC-BY should be
straightforward. Since it's not an SA license we should be
able to relicense under AL (or just stick with CC-BY if this
is acceptable). Many of those pages come from the talented folks
of ODFAuthors and we may also just ask them to put it under
AL for reuse at Apache OOo.
(2) All pages originally by Sun/Oracle can undoubtfully be
relicensed.
(3) The remaining pages would need analysis and then permission
by the authors whenever the effort seems worthwhile.
Note that my primary concern is user (and developer) docs here,
so anything in English under wiki/Documentation. Any localized
content would need separate treatment.
Frank
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Thorsten Behrens <th...@documentfoundation.org>.
Should we maybe move that over to legal-discuss?
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I think that's reading too much into the Copyright Notice.
>
> The notice is not enough to determine what portions are under whose copyright. It is *not* all under Oracle copyright. In fact, I suspect the only part that is will be from Sun and Oracle employees (as work for hire) and perhaps others who signed CLAs (although the terms don't require one for the site, including the wiki).
>
> That formula notice is not enough for Oracle to act as the holder of copyrights that were in no way transferred by the other contributors. (CLAs are not required under the general site terms and definitely not for wiki contributions.)
>
> Assuming that the terms can be held to apply to the wiki (there is no notice on the wiki and no click-through with regard to the terms that I've seen), all anyone can do (including you or I) is sublicense and that is not the same thing. It is nice that the terms of use assert a default permissive license, but that is difficult to apply to the wiki also because people are allowed to (1) attach their own copyright notices and, as we have seen, (2) assert less permissive licenses by signing up on that special list.
>
> Recall that, in the US and I assume elsewhere, copyright must be explicitly transferred in writing except for the work-for-hire case.
>
> In short, the wiki is a mess. IMHO as we like to say.
>
> And, IANAL, but I would love to play one on television.
>
> - Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 22:01
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: fpe@openoffice.org
> Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>
> > Agreed where Oracle has the exclusive copyright. My only concern is
> > that those other-license pages might not be under Oracle copyright
> > and we will need to find out.
>
> As I mentioned in the reply to Thorsten's mail, according to
> the copyright page, Oracle co-owns the copyright to all wiki
> content, unless you dispute the validity of that statement as such.
>
> > I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution flag
>
> And rightly so.
>
> > -- another matter to check into.
>
> Frank
>
> > - Dennis
> >
> > PS: I am working to break myself of the convenient but misleading
> > term, "relicensing," since only the owner of the copyright can set
> > license terms and offer multiple (non-exclusive) licenses. There is
> > no downstream "relicensing." What happens is more nuanced and
> > relicensing appears not to be an appropriate term.
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters
> > [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14,
> > 2011 13:09 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the
> > project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
> >
> >
> >> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
> >> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an
> >> individual-page basis.
> >
> > That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the wiki has
> > traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle remedy this by (as
> > copyright holder) relicensing the content under AL like done with the
> > source?
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein
> >> [mailto:gstein@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To:
> >> ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the project -
> >> wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
> >> <fr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> >>>>
> >>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on
> >>>> visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is this one:
> >>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> And that leads to this interesting one:
> >>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >>>>
> None of those are what I would call permissive.
> >>>
> >>> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually
> >>> donates the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document
> >>> equivalent of it) as well. Same holds for the website content.
> >>
> >> There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
> >>
> >> The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
> >>
> >> If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content,
> >> then they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we
> >> can license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
> >>
> >> Cheers, -g
> >>
> >
>
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
RE: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I think that's reading too much into the Copyright Notice.
The notice is not enough to determine what portions are under whose copyright. It is *not* all under Oracle copyright. In fact, I suspect the only part that is will be from Sun and Oracle employees (as work for hire) and perhaps others who signed CLAs (although the terms don't require one for the site, including the wiki).
That formula notice is not enough for Oracle to act as the holder of copyrights that were in no way transferred by the other contributors. (CLAs are not required under the general site terms and definitely not for wiki contributions.)
Assuming that the terms can be held to apply to the wiki (there is no notice on the wiki and no click-through with regard to the terms that I've seen), all anyone can do (including you or I) is sublicense and that is not the same thing. It is nice that the terms of use assert a default permissive license, but that is difficult to apply to the wiki also because people are allowed to (1) attach their own copyright notices and, as we have seen, (2) assert less permissive licenses by signing up on that special list.
Recall that, in the US and I assume elsewhere, copyright must be explicitly transferred in writing except for the work-for-hire case.
In short, the wiki is a mess. IMHO as we like to say.
And, IANAL, but I would love to play one on television.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 22:01
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: fpe@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
> Agreed where Oracle has the exclusive copyright. My only concern is
> that those other-license pages might not be under Oracle copyright
> and we will need to find out.
As I mentioned in the reply to Thorsten's mail, according to
the copyright page, Oracle co-owns the copyright to all wiki
content, unless you dispute the validity of that statement as such.
> I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution flag
And rightly so.
> -- another matter to check into.
Frank
> - Dennis
>
> PS: I am working to break myself of the convenient but misleading
> term, "relicensing," since only the owner of the copyright can set
> license terms and offer multiple (non-exclusive) licenses. There is
> no downstream "relicensing." What happens is more nuanced and
> relicensing appears not to be an appropriate term.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters
> [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14,
> 2011 13:09 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the
> project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>
>
>> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
>> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an
>> individual-page basis.
>
> That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the wiki has
> traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle remedy this by (as
> copyright holder) relicensing the content under AL like done with the
> source?
>
> Frank
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein
>> [mailto:gstein@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To:
>> ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the project -
>> wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
>> <fr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>>>
>>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on
>>>> visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>>>>
>>>> There is this one:
>>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>
And that leads to this interesting one:
>>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>
None of those are what I would call permissive.
>>>
>>> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually
>>> donates the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document
>>> equivalent of it) as well. Same holds for the website content.
>>
>> There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
>>
>> The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
>>
>> If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content,
>> then they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we
>> can license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
>>
>> Cheers, -g
>>
>
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
> Agreed where Oracle has the exclusive copyright. My only concern is
> that those other-license pages might not be under Oracle copyright
> and we will need to find out.
As I mentioned in the reply to Thorsten's mail, according to
the copyright page, Oracle co-owns the copyright to all wiki
content, unless you dispute the validity of that statement as such.
> I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution flag
And rightly so.
> -- another matter to check into.
Frank
> - Dennis
>
> PS: I am working to break myself of the convenient but misleading
> term, "relicensing," since only the owner of the copyright can set
> license terms and offer multiple (non-exclusive) licenses. There is
> no downstream "relicensing." What happens is more nuanced and
> relicensing appears not to be an appropriate term.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters
> [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14,
> 2011 13:09 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the
> project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>
>
>> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
>> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an
>> individual-page basis.
>
> That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the wiki has
> traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle remedy this by (as
> copyright holder) relicensing the content under AL like done with the
> source?
>
> Frank
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein
>> [mailto:gstein@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To:
>> ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the project -
>> wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
>> <fr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>>>
>>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on
>>>> visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>>>>
>>>> There is this one:
>>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>
And that leads to this interesting one:
>>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>
None of those are what I would call permissive.
>>>
>>> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually
>>> donates the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document
>>> equivalent of it) as well. Same holds for the website content.
>>
>> There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
>>
>> The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
>>
>> If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content,
>> then they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we
>> can license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
>>
>> Cheers, -g
>>
>
RE: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Agreed where Oracle has the exclusive copyright. My only concern is that those other-license pages might not be under Oracle copyright and we will need to find out.
I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution flag -- another matter to check into.
- Dennis
PS: I am working to break myself of the convenient but misleading term, "relicensing," since only the owner of the copyright can set license terms and offer multiple (non-exclusive) licenses. There is no downstream "relicensing." What happens is more nuanced and relicensing appears not to be an appropriate term.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 13:09
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an individual-page
> basis.
That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the
wiki has traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle
remedy this by (as copyright holder) relicensing the content
under AL like done with the source?
Frank
> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein
> [mailto:gstein@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To:
> ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the project -
> wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
> <fr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>>
>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on
>>> visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>>>
>>> There is this one:
>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
And that leads to this interesting one:
>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
None of those are what I would call permissive.
>>
>> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually
>> donates the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document
>> equivalent of it) as well. Same holds for the website content.
>
> There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
>
> The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
>
> If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content, then
> they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we can
> license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
>
> Cheers, -g
>
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
> I was more concerned by the statement just beneath the broad
> copyright notice:
>
> "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."
>
> The Copyright notice itself lacks a certain precision, for that
> matter. Consider the discussion page and the question that seems to
> have been sitting unanswered since 2005:
> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki_talk:Copyrights>.
Yes, this situation is a little "fuzzy". But the question is
irrelevant for this matter since we are pondering about
copyright, not licensing.
> And some of the authors seem to have attached non-permissive
> licenses to their contribution.
>
> I just created an account on that Wiki and I didn't have to agree to
> anything so far. I'm also not able to even edit my own User page
> though, and I did confirm my e-mail. Interesting.
That is news to me. I have been trying to get a click-through
agreement implemented for a long time to clarify things right
from the start but, alas, to no avail
Frank
> - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters
> [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14,
> 2011 14:39 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the
> project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>
> Am 14.06.2011 23:31, schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
>> Frank Peters wrote:
>>>> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was
>>>> under special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an
>>>> individual-page basis.
>>>
>>> That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the wiki
>>> has traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle remedy this
>>> by (as copyright holder) relicensing the content under AL like
>>> done with the source?
>>>
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> um, I think the point made here is that certain content is *not*
>> copyright-shared with Oracle, and thus cannot be (easily)
>> relicensed?
>
> The point was about licenses and not copyright.
>
> The mentioned wiki Copyright page says "Copyright 1999, 2010 by the
> contributing authors and Oracle and/or its affiliates."
>
> Frank
>
RE: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I was more concerned by the statement just beneath the broad copyright notice:
"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."
The Copyright notice itself lacks a certain precision, for that matter. Consider the discussion page and the question that seems to have been sitting unanswered since 2005:
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki_talk:Copyrights>.
And some of the authors seem to have attached non-permissive licenses to their contribution.
I just created an account on that Wiki and I didn't have to agree to anything so far. I'm also not able to even edit my own User page though, and I did confirm my e-mail. Interesting.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 14:39
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Am 14.06.2011 23:31, schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
> Frank Peters wrote:
>>> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
>>> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an individual-page
>>> basis.
>>
>> That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the
>> wiki has traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle
>> remedy this by (as copyright holder) relicensing the content
>> under AL like done with the source?
>>
> Hi Frank,
>
> um, I think the point made here is that certain content is *not*
> copyright-shared with Oracle, and thus cannot be (easily)
> relicensed?
The point was about licenses and not copyright.
The mentioned wiki Copyright page says
"Copyright 1999, 2010 by the contributing authors and
Oracle and/or its affiliates."
Frank
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Thorsten,
>>> um, I think the point made here is that certain content is *not*
>>> copyright-shared with Oracle, and thus cannot be (easily)
>>> relicensed?
>>
>> The point was about licenses and not copyright.
>>
>> The mentioned wiki Copyright page says
>> "Copyright 1999, 2010 by the contributing authors and
>> Oracle and/or its affiliates."
> I think you've lost me here. Since Oracle does not exclusively own
> the copyright for individual content, surely it cannot relicense it
> unilaterally? Especially it cannot remove copyright statements like
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration
> as per http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use §4 c?
I understand your point but I actually think it is going into
the wrong direction. The license declaration is not a copyright
statement.
As per the wiki copyright page, Oracle and the contributing authors
co-own the copyright of the content. So this is the same situation
as for the code. As copyright co-owner, Oracle would be eligible
to relicense the content (as would the original contributors,
of course, and that is what they did in the license declaration).
> Disclaimer: I have a stake in this, being one of the people listed
> on the page above ...
Right. And again, I get your point and I especially get your
original motivation to join that declaration.
Best
Frank
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Thorsten Behrens <th...@documentfoundation.org>.
Frank Peters wrote:
> >um, I think the point made here is that certain content is *not*
> >copyright-shared with Oracle, and thus cannot be (easily)
> >relicensed?
>
> The point was about licenses and not copyright.
>
> The mentioned wiki Copyright page says
> "Copyright 1999, 2010 by the contributing authors and
> Oracle and/or its affiliates."
>
Hi Frank,
I think you've lost me here. Since Oracle does not exclusively own
the copyright for individual content, surely it cannot relicense it
unilaterally? Especially it cannot remove copyright statements like
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration
as per http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use §4 c?
Disclaimer: I have a stake in this, being one of the people listed
on the page above ...
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
Am 14.06.2011 23:31, schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
> Frank Peters wrote:
>>> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
>>> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an individual-page
>>> basis.
>>
>> That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the
>> wiki has traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle
>> remedy this by (as copyright holder) relicensing the content
>> under AL like done with the source?
>>
> Hi Frank,
>
> um, I think the point made here is that certain content is *not*
> copyright-shared with Oracle, and thus cannot be (easily)
> relicensed?
The point was about licenses and not copyright.
The mentioned wiki Copyright page says
"Copyright 1999, 2010 by the contributing authors and
Oracle and/or its affiliates."
Frank
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Thorsten Behrens <th...@documentfoundation.org>.
Frank Peters wrote:
> >What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
> >special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an individual-page
> >basis.
>
> That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the
> wiki has traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle
> remedy this by (as copyright holder) relicensing the content
> under AL like done with the source?
>
Hi Frank,
um, I think the point made here is that certain content is *not*
copyright-shared with Oracle, and thus cannot be (easily)
relicensed?
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under
> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an individual-page
> basis.
That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the
wiki has traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle
remedy this by (as copyright holder) relicensing the content
under AL like done with the source?
Frank
> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein
> [mailto:gstein@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To:
> ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the project -
> wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
> <fr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>>
>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on
>>> visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>>>
>>> There is this one:
>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
And that leads to this interesting one:
>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
None of those are what I would call permissive.
>>
>> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually
>> donates the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document
>> equivalent of it) as well. Same holds for the website content.
>
> There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
>
> The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
>
> If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content, then
> they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we can
> license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
>
> Cheers, -g
>
RE: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an individual-page basis.
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
<fr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>
>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on visiting
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>>
>> There is this one:
>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
>>
>> And that leads to this interesting one:
>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
>>
>> None of those are what I would call permissive.
>
> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually donates
> the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document equivalent of it)
> as well. Same holds for the website content.
There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content, then
they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we can
license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
Cheers,
-g
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
<fr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
>>
>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on visiting
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>>
>> There is this one:
>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
>>
>> And that leads to this interesting one:
>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
>>
>> None of those are what I would call permissive.
>
> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually donates
> the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document equivalent of it)
> as well. Same holds for the website content.
There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content, then
they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we can
license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
Cheers,
-g
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Frank Peters <fr...@googlemail.com>.
Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>
> There is this one:
> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
>
> And that leads to this interesting one:
> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
>
> None of those are what I would call permissive.
The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually donates
the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document equivalent of it)
as well. Same holds for the website content.
Frank
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.peters@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 05:55
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: fpe@openoffice.org
> Subject: Re: Wiki for the project
>
> What will happen to the existing wiki at
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org
> which has quite some content (including
> the main documentation pieces)?
>
> Would we maintain two wikis or merge
> into Apache infrastructure? How can we
> migrate existing content?
>
> I'd be eager to help with migration efforts (I
> have admin rights on the wiki).
>
> Frank
>
>> +1 on the wiki request.
>>
>> Mentors,some advice, please, on how we make this happen? Is things
>> something that PPMC members have rights to do? Or do we ask the IPMC? Or do
>> we enter a request in the Infrastructure list? Or some Infrastructure issue
>> tracking system?
>>
>> I'm volunteering to do the leg work (or is it finger work?) if someone can
>> point me in the right direction.
>>
>> Also, what level of approval in the project is typically needed for routine
>> requests like this? Is a +1 with no objections sufficient? Or do projects
>> typically have a more elaborate voting procedure for this?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Raphael Bircher<r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi at all
>>>
>>> On http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html there is no
>>> wiki emptry. We should use the incubator wiki to collect informations, or we
>>> get a seperate wiki for OOo?
>>>
>>> If we have to use the incubator wike, how we have to marke OOo pages. It is
>>> ok, if every site beginns with "OOo"?
>>>
>>> Greetings Raphael
>>> --
>>> My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
>>>
>>
>
Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>
> There is this one:
> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
>
> And that leads to this interesting one:
> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
>
> None of those are what I would call permissive.
>
Hi Dennis,
My understanding, someone please correct me if I am wrong, those pages
along with many others will have to be reworked to make the needed
changes to reflect the new licensing. That is what we are here for. :)
Andy