You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> on 2015/03/11 10:33:45 UTC
Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Hi all,
As it seems that I will be retired in advance (4 years) in July, I will
have more time and I plan to join another project. As this project uses a
different licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0), I would use for my original
contributions, currently under ALv2.0, a double licence (ALv2.0 and
CC-BY-SA 3.0) to make my contributions regarding OpenOffice (currently docs
only) available for the 2 projects.
I plan to produce images extensions for AOO in the biological area
(principally Hematology, Microbiology and Histology) with original images
that I have myself already produced on my own equipment or that I could
obtain with an authorization from labs where I have some contacts.
So, the big question. Is such a material, under such a double licence,
reachable for the AOO project in case of it would reuse it.
A collaboration with www.wikimedia.ch could bring to me the advantage of
hooking my old wagon to a locomotive which has success in Switzerland and
has the necessary contacts with the education area and media. I think that
it could bring locally more visibility to the AOO project than if I try to
push the wagon alone.
I don't have contacted them up to now, I'm waiting for your advice before
to do it.
Regards
--
gw
Re: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dennis,
Hi all,
2015-03-11 17:53 GMT+01:00 Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>:
> Is it correct to assume that we are speaking of documentation
+1
> and, specifically, material for the OpenOffice.org wiki and web site?
>
-1
>
> If the idea is to maintain the core material on only one place, you need
> to decide what is the upstream source. It seems to me that means the place
> with the most-permissive licensing. Namely, the AOO sites.
>
I explore the possibility to migrate my original works actually under
ALv2.0 to fr Wikipedia under a double licence ALv2.0 and their licence
CC-BY-SA 3.0 and as wikibooks. It will be a big work and will require their
help because I have never use a wiki, but I will have the time to learn how
it's works ;-).
To put the work on a wiki Apache has no sense, nobody will improve an fr
documentation here. See what happens with the original en documentation
project. The issue is to proceed so that the doc stays under a double
licence and could not evoluate with the improvements in a doc under the
single licence of wikipédia. I will only outsource my work in a place where
it has more chance to be improve.
Regards
--
gw
>
>
>
RE: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Is it correct to assume that we are speaking of documentation and, specifically, material for the OpenOffice.org wiki and web site?
If the idea is to maintain the core material on only one place, you need to decide what is the upstream source. It seems to me that means the place with the most-permissive licensing. Namely, the AOO sites.
If that is the case, the note below applies, I think.
- Dennis
Documentation Licensing on AOO sites
I recommend that no license be added to the material, so that the default license on materials for those sites would apply. You are already contributing under your iCLA.
See <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html> and the bottom of these pages, <https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page>. Other licenses are for legacy content and are not used for new content.
I am operating on the assumption that dual-licensed material are not acceptable in that form as contributions into ASF Project repositories and sites for the same reason that Category B materials are isolated. Share Alike is at least Category B and is arguably Category X.
Whether someone makes a derivative under CC-BY-SA (with International 4.0 preferable to 3.0) is their business, provided the minimal attribution requirements of ALv2 are satisfied.
Of course you are also free to contribute elsewhere under any license you choose, so long as it is your original work (in the sense that is used in Copyright nomenclature).
-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Waterval [mailto:waterval.guy@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 04:41
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Hi Michael,
Hi all,
2015-03-11 12:14 GMT+01:00 RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>:
[...]
But: if a user creates a derived work and puts it unter CC-BY_SA only,
> Apache can't use the derived work.
>
> ("Use" includes also "improve" and "share".)
>
> So the problem is the use of improvements.
>
This is the problem I thought.
For cliparts extensions it's not an issue, because they can be produced
under different licences as they stay external to the AOO project itself.
But a documentation on OpenOffice is more sensible because the improvements
could quickly produce 2 different versions, which is not really
interesting.
Regards
--
gw
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Michael,
Hi all,
2015-03-11 12:14 GMT+01:00 RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>:
[...]
But: if a user creates a derived work and puts it unter CC-BY_SA only,
> Apache can't use the derived work.
>
> ("Use" includes also "improve" and "share".)
>
> So the problem is the use of improvements.
>
This is the problem I thought.
For cliparts extensions it's not an issue, because they can be produced
under different licences as they stay external to the AOO project itself.
But a documentation on OpenOffice is more sensible because the improvements
could quickly produce 2 different versions, which is not really
interesting.
Regards
--
gw
>
>
Re: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>
wrote:
> On 11.03.2015 10:53, jan i wrote:
> > On 11 March 2015 at 10:33, Guy Waterval <waterval.guy@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As it seems that I will be retired in advance (4 years) in July, I will
> >> have more time and I plan to join another project. As this project uses
> a
> >> different licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0), I would use for my original
> >> contributions, currently under ALv2.0, a double licence (ALv2.0 and
> >> CC-BY-SA 3.0) to make my contributions regarding OpenOffice (currently
> docs
> >> only) available for the 2 projects.
> >>
> > We do not have a problem with double licensing, actually it is in use for
> > quite a number of places.
> >
> > The preferred way is of course to submit the original with the ALv2
> > license, and then add the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license when committing to the
> > second project. This is the standard way with absolutely no problems
> > independent of how closed or open the second license is.
> >
> > You can also add the double license directly in our repo, here we would
> > need to look more careful at the license to see if it limits our own
> usage
> > or that of downstream projects.
> >
> A second license in addition to ALv2.0 can't limit the usage because the
> user has the choice to contract one or both of the licenses.
>
> But: if a user creates a derived work and puts it unter CC-BY_SA only,
> Apache can't use the derived work.
he cannot remove the ALv2 license legally, so he needs to write explicitly
that the changes are only available as CC-BY_SA, something most users do
not do. To write it explicitly is important because once the code is
inserted into the file, nobody can see which part is which license,
therefore both licenses will apply to the full file.
If you have a file with 2 licenses and no exceptions you can choose between
the 2 or maybe add a 3rd.
I have lately had talks with people specializing in this, and it seems life
is actually quite simple, but we often tend to make it complicated
especially because we know about version control, something a lawyer do not
care about.
rgds
jan i
>
> ("Use" includes also "improve" and "share".)
>
> So the problem is the use of improvements.
>
> Kind regards
> Michael
>
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
On 11.03.2015 10:53, jan i wrote:
> On 11 March 2015 at 10:33, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As it seems that I will be retired in advance (4 years) in July, I will
>> have more time and I plan to join another project. As this project uses a
>> different licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0), I would use for my original
>> contributions, currently under ALv2.0, a double licence (ALv2.0 and
>> CC-BY-SA 3.0) to make my contributions regarding OpenOffice (currently docs
>> only) available for the 2 projects.
>>
> We do not have a problem with double licensing, actually it is in use for
> quite a number of places.
>
> The preferred way is of course to submit the original with the ALv2
> license, and then add the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license when committing to the
> second project. This is the standard way with absolutely no problems
> independent of how closed or open the second license is.
>
> You can also add the double license directly in our repo, here we would
> need to look more careful at the license to see if it limits our own usage
> or that of downstream projects.
>
A second license in addition to ALv2.0 can't limit the usage because the
user has the choice to contract one or both of the licenses.
But: if a user creates a derived work and puts it unter CC-BY_SA only,
Apache can't use the derived work.
("Use" includes also "improve" and "share".)
So the problem is the use of improvements.
Kind regards
Michael
Re: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 11 March 2015 at 10:33, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As it seems that I will be retired in advance (4 years) in July, I will
> have more time and I plan to join another project. As this project uses a
> different licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0), I would use for my original
> contributions, currently under ALv2.0, a double licence (ALv2.0 and
> CC-BY-SA 3.0) to make my contributions regarding OpenOffice (currently docs
> only) available for the 2 projects.
>
We do not have a problem with double licensing, actually it is in use for
quite a number of places.
The preferred way is of course to submit the original with the ALv2
license, and then add the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license when committing to the
second project. This is the standard way with absolutely no problems
independent of how closed or open the second license is.
You can also add the double license directly in our repo, here we would
need to look more careful at the license to see if it limits our own usage
or that of downstream projects.
>
> I plan to produce images extensions for AOO in the biological area
> (principally Hematology, Microbiology and Histology) with original images
> that I have myself already produced on my own equipment or that I could
> obtain with an authorization from labs where I have some contacts.
>
Sounds very interesting.
>
> So, the big question. Is such a material, under such a double licence,
> reachable for the AOO project in case of it would reuse it.
>
simple answer is yes, especially since it is not code.
>
> A collaboration with www.wikimedia.ch could bring to me the advantage of
> hooking my old wagon to a locomotive which has success in Switzerland and
> has the necessary contacts with the education area and media. I think that
> it could bring locally more visibility to the AOO project than if I try to
> push the wagon alone.
>
Collaboration is the key to opensource, so any collaboration that brings
positive effects to AOO is welcome.
rgds
jan i.
>
> I don't have contacted them up to now, I'm waiting for your advice before
> to do it.
>
> Regards
> --
> gw
>