You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to doc@openoffice.apache.org by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net> on 2021/01/08 21:35:35 UTC
Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
I have filed a question with ASF Legal seeking guidance on updating the
older OOo documentation. You can follow it at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-552
Regards
Keith
Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
On 1/31/2021 7:25 PM, F Campos Costero wrote:
> In the thread titled "CC License on Externally-Produced Documentation"
> (started on Jan 22), DaveB pointed out:
>
> "There is nothing to discuss by the PMC or anyone else about having the
> documentation on an ASF-owned repository. This has been happening since
> AOO first came into existence see:
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_Chapters_ODT
> All of those are under GNU General Public License
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), version 3 or later, or the
> Creative Commons Attribution License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later,
> being served from Registrant Organization: The Apache Software Foundation."
>
>
> That is an excellent point. Let's just move forward with requesting a
> repository for documentation.
>
> Francis
>
I just received some answers from my reopening of the Legal Jira and
based on those we are good to go.I will look into the best way to get
that repository created tomorrow morning.
Regards
Keith
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 3:18 PM Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> See one comment in line.
>> On 1/9/2021 12:05 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:
>>> The TL;DR: What LibreOffice has done is no use for the creation of AOO
>> documentation.
>>>
>>> THE SITUATION
>>>
>>> First, what LibreOffice does about cleaning up their help files is not
>> something of concern to AOO (although leaving in links to openoffice.org
>> support would be annoying).
>>>
>>> LibreOffice has made two noteworthy forks, one from openoffice.org
>> (under LGPL license), and one from AOO (under Apache license). The second
>> allowed LibreOffice to fork code contributed to the ASF by IBM that was not
>> part of openoffice.org. The Apache-licensed fork also allowed the
>> derivative to be licensed under the MPL, the license offered on current
>> releases of LibreOffice. [L]GPL licenses do not permit this. It is also
>> the case that patches and bug reports at AOO can be absorbed by LibreOffice
>> (and not vice versa) although the maintenance and feature changes in the
>> time since LibreOffice was originally forked makes LibreOffice increasingly
>> different.
>>>
>> One slight errata one the above paragraph. We can and have received code
>> from LibreOffice as long as the author of that code agrees to dual
>> license it under ALv2 and current LO license.A work around for sure but
>> it has gained us some code fixes.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>> Technically, making a derivative that is made available under a
>> different license does not impact the copyright on the original code or the
>> unaltered code in the derivative. That has to do with how copyright
>> works. Generally, one has no copyright on work of another. The prominent
>> exception is work for hire, where the employer has copyright where the
>> employee would have otherwise. That is not the issue here.
>>>> I do not speak for the ASF or ASF Legal. I can point out that the ASF
>> has expressed disinterest in policing how others fork code from ASF
>> projects apart from abuses of ASF trademarks.
>>>
>>> ASF has a SERIOUS POLICY AND PRACTICE COMMITMENT to clean provenance and
>> good open-source citizenship of ASF projects and what is carried in project
>> repositories and releases. IT IS THAT COMMITMENT that gives rise to the
>> difficulty of building ASF Project content based on the OpenOffice.org
>> documentation produced elsewhere and not part of the Oracle grant of
>> openoffice.org code to the ASF. (This extends to how libraries under
>> different licenses, when optionally used in builds of ASF releases, are
>> excluded from direct inclusion in the ASF Project repositories, a provision
>> that is not helpful in deriving documentation for AOO.)
>>>
>>> While it may seem peculiar, it is the case that the ASF has no concern
>> were a third party to fork the OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation and align
>> it with current AOO releases, provided that ASF trademarks were respected
>> and there was no claimed origin and support of the ASF and the AOO
>> project. The results should respect all licenses and copyright of the
>> original documentation, of course.
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that the good offices of the ODF Authors project were
>> not accepted at a time when it could have made a difference. That option
>> is no longer available. Jean Weber is to be commended for the effort she
>> expended in providing that opportunity. The AOO Project did not exercise
>> the will or the capacity to take that avenue. And here we are, where we
>> have always been, as time goes by.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com>
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 04:17
>>> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
>> documentation
>>>
>>> Of course, while in the libreoffice code last week, I did notice a
>> tremendous amount of references to and use of "openoffice".
>>>
>>> I had been in the help for Libreoffice!
>>>
>>> /user/share/libreoffice/help/en-us
>>>
>>>
>>> Attached is a screen capture "default.css".
>>>
>>> Now, I am not *as* familiar (yet) with the Apache License as I am with
>> the GPL, So, I think this may be another ticket for legal to review.
>>>
>>> In a fork with GPL, no reference to the original software is made.
>>> I forked remastersys, and worked with the dev to transition, then
>> renamed it respin.
>>> No instances of the original app/tool are in my code.
>>>
>>> However, not sure about Apache license. Most of my dev history is under
>> the GPL.
>>>
>>> - but I had conducted a search in libreoffice and returned a large
>> amount of files and directories:
>>> openoffice
>>>
>>> Maybe legal knows, because I even found starmath there.
>>>
>>> So: Can a fork use the original tool/app/utility name in the code they
>> release.
>>>
>>> It's just odd to see a fork reference the original in the code and
>> directories...
>>> Having so many references to openoffice in the code really seems to
>> indicate a relationship or something.
>>> Anyway. as a developer, with respect to the original app - maybe change
>> the references in the code to Libreoffice!
>>>
>>> Anyway - Keith, do you know if this is "okay" or not. Or if you can ask
>> legal, they may have an answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jean Weber" <je...@gmail.com>
>>> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 2:45:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
>> documentation
>>>
>>> Help content is part of the program itself, so of course it's Apache
>> license. User guides are not part of the program, hence the uncertainty of
>> whether they must also be the same Apache license.
>>> Jean
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:35 PM marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ======================================================================
>>>> ====
>>>> Guide content for Writer (example)
>>>>
>>>> Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide
>>>> directory
>>>> ======================================================================
>>>> ==== Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the
>>>> content files in LibreOffice to confirm the license.
>>>>
>>>> Just FYI on the status of the help files.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Dennis Hamilton" <or...@msn.com>
>>>> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
>>>> documentation
>>>>
>>>> I believe GPL is still category X.
>>>>
>>>> The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code
>>>> can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that
>>>> is not OK generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing
>>>> their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but
>>>> LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.)
>>>>
>>>> The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a
>> restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in
>> the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.
>>>>
>>>> If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the
>> OpenOffice 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
>>>> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
>>>> documentation
>>>>
>>>> I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got
>> permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a
>> more friendly license."
>>>>
>>>> As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a)
>>>> several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
>>>> (b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we
>> don't have current contact info or they have died.
>>>>
>>>> The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we
>>>> could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs
>>>> said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
>>>> *either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not
>>>> allowed, says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version
>> 3 of the GPL."
>>>> IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be
>> okay.
>>>>
>>>> Jean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Posted by F Campos Costero <fj...@gmail.com>.
In the thread titled "CC License on Externally-Produced Documentation"
(started on Jan 22), DaveB pointed out:
"There is nothing to discuss by the PMC or anyone else about having the
documentation on an ASF-owned repository. This has been happening since
AOO first came into existence see:
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_Chapters_ODT
All of those are under GNU General Public License
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), version 3 or later, or the
Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later,
being served from Registrant Organization: The Apache Software Foundation."
That is an excellent point. Let's just move forward with requesting a
repository for documentation.
Francis
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 3:18 PM Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> See one comment in line.
> On 1/9/2021 12:05 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:
> > The TL;DR: What LibreOffice has done is no use for the creation of AOO
> documentation.
> >
> > THE SITUATION
> >
> > First, what LibreOffice does about cleaning up their help files is not
> something of concern to AOO (although leaving in links to openoffice.org
> support would be annoying).
> >
> > LibreOffice has made two noteworthy forks, one from openoffice.org
> (under LGPL license), and one from AOO (under Apache license). The second
> allowed LibreOffice to fork code contributed to the ASF by IBM that was not
> part of openoffice.org. The Apache-licensed fork also allowed the
> derivative to be licensed under the MPL, the license offered on current
> releases of LibreOffice. [L]GPL licenses do not permit this. It is also
> the case that patches and bug reports at AOO can be absorbed by LibreOffice
> (and not vice versa) although the maintenance and feature changes in the
> time since LibreOffice was originally forked makes LibreOffice increasingly
> different.
> >
> One slight errata one the above paragraph. We can and have received code
> from LibreOffice as long as the author of that code agrees to dual
> license it under ALv2 and current LO license.A work around for sure but
> it has gained us some code fixes.
>
> Keith
>
> > Technically, making a derivative that is made available under a
> different license does not impact the copyright on the original code or the
> unaltered code in the derivative. That has to do with how copyright
> works. Generally, one has no copyright on work of another. The prominent
> exception is work for hire, where the employer has copyright where the
> employee would have otherwise. That is not the issue here.
> >> I do not speak for the ASF or ASF Legal. I can point out that the ASF
> has expressed disinterest in policing how others fork code from ASF
> projects apart from abuses of ASF trademarks.
> >
> > ASF has a SERIOUS POLICY AND PRACTICE COMMITMENT to clean provenance and
> good open-source citizenship of ASF projects and what is carried in project
> repositories and releases. IT IS THAT COMMITMENT that gives rise to the
> difficulty of building ASF Project content based on the OpenOffice.org
> documentation produced elsewhere and not part of the Oracle grant of
> openoffice.org code to the ASF. (This extends to how libraries under
> different licenses, when optionally used in builds of ASF releases, are
> excluded from direct inclusion in the ASF Project repositories, a provision
> that is not helpful in deriving documentation for AOO.)
> >
> > While it may seem peculiar, it is the case that the ASF has no concern
> were a third party to fork the OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation and align
> it with current AOO releases, provided that ASF trademarks were respected
> and there was no claimed origin and support of the ASF and the AOO
> project. The results should respect all licenses and copyright of the
> original documentation, of course.
> >
> > It is unfortunate that the good offices of the ODF Authors project were
> not accepted at a time when it could have made a difference. That option
> is no longer available. Jean Weber is to be commended for the effort she
> expended in providing that opportunity. The AOO Project did not exercise
> the will or the capacity to take that avenue. And here we are, where we
> have always been, as time goes by.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 04:17
> > To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
> documentation
> >
> > Of course, while in the libreoffice code last week, I did notice a
> tremendous amount of references to and use of "openoffice".
> >
> > I had been in the help for Libreoffice!
> >
> > /user/share/libreoffice/help/en-us
> >
> >
> > Attached is a screen capture "default.css".
> >
> > Now, I am not *as* familiar (yet) with the Apache License as I am with
> the GPL, So, I think this may be another ticket for legal to review.
> >
> > In a fork with GPL, no reference to the original software is made.
> > I forked remastersys, and worked with the dev to transition, then
> renamed it respin.
> > No instances of the original app/tool are in my code.
> >
> > However, not sure about Apache license. Most of my dev history is under
> the GPL.
> >
> > - but I had conducted a search in libreoffice and returned a large
> amount of files and directories:
> > openoffice
> >
> > Maybe legal knows, because I even found starmath there.
> >
> > So: Can a fork use the original tool/app/utility name in the code they
> release.
> >
> > It's just odd to see a fork reference the original in the code and
> directories...
> > Having so many references to openoffice in the code really seems to
> indicate a relationship or something.
> > Anyway. as a developer, with respect to the original app - maybe change
> the references in the code to Libreoffice!
> >
> > Anyway - Keith, do you know if this is "okay" or not. Or if you can ask
> legal, they may have an answer.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jean Weber" <je...@gmail.com>
> > To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> > Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 2:45:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
> documentation
> >
> > Help content is part of the program itself, so of course it's Apache
> license. User guides are not part of the program, hence the uncertainty of
> whether they must also be the same Apache license.
> > Jean
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:35 PM marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0
> >>
> >>
> >> ======================================================================
> >> ====
> >> Guide content for Writer (example)
> >>
> >> Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide
> >> directory
> >> ======================================================================
> >> ==== Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the
> >> content files in LibreOffice to confirm the license.
> >>
> >> Just FYI on the status of the help files.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Dennis Hamilton" <or...@msn.com>
> >> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM
> >> Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
> >> documentation
> >>
> >> I believe GPL is still category X.
> >>
> >> The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code
> >> can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that
> >> is not OK generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing
> >> their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but
> >> LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.)
> >>
> >> The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a
> restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in
> the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.
> >>
> >> If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the
> OpenOffice 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project.
> >>
> >> - Dennis
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
> >> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
> >> documentation
> >>
> >> I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got
> permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a
> more friendly license."
> >>
> >> As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a)
> >> several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
> >> (b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we
> don't have current contact info or they have died.
> >>
> >> The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we
> >> could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs
> >> said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
> >> *either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not
> >> allowed, says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version
> 3 of the GPL."
> >> IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be
> okay.
> >>
> >> Jean
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
See one comment in line.
On 1/9/2021 12:05 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:
> The TL;DR: What LibreOffice has done is no use for the creation of AOO documentation.
>
> THE SITUATION
>
> First, what LibreOffice does about cleaning up their help files is not something of concern to AOO (although leaving in links to openoffice.org support would be annoying).
>
> LibreOffice has made two noteworthy forks, one from openoffice.org (under LGPL license), and one from AOO (under Apache license). The second allowed LibreOffice to fork code contributed to the ASF by IBM that was not part of openoffice.org. The Apache-licensed fork also allowed the derivative to be licensed under the MPL, the license offered on current releases of LibreOffice. [L]GPL licenses do not permit this. It is also the case that patches and bug reports at AOO can be absorbed by LibreOffice (and not vice versa) although the maintenance and feature changes in the time since LibreOffice was originally forked makes LibreOffice increasingly different.
>
One slight errata one the above paragraph. We can and have received code
from LibreOffice as long as the author of that code agrees to dual
license it under ALv2 and current LO license.A work around for sure but
it has gained us some code fixes.
Keith
> Technically, making a derivative that is made available under a different license does not impact the copyright on the original code or the unaltered code in the derivative. That has to do with how copyright works. Generally, one has no copyright on work of another. The prominent exception is work for hire, where the employer has copyright where the employee would have otherwise. That is not the issue here.
>> I do not speak for the ASF or ASF Legal. I can point out that the ASF
has expressed disinterest in policing how others fork code from ASF
projects apart from abuses of ASF trademarks.
>
> ASF has a SERIOUS POLICY AND PRACTICE COMMITMENT to clean provenance and good open-source citizenship of ASF projects and what is carried in project repositories and releases. IT IS THAT COMMITMENT that gives rise to the difficulty of building ASF Project content based on the OpenOffice.org documentation produced elsewhere and not part of the Oracle grant of openoffice.org code to the ASF. (This extends to how libraries under different licenses, when optionally used in builds of ASF releases, are excluded from direct inclusion in the ASF Project repositories, a provision that is not helpful in deriving documentation for AOO.)
>
> While it may seem peculiar, it is the case that the ASF has no concern were a third party to fork the OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation and align it with current AOO releases, provided that ASF trademarks were respected and there was no claimed origin and support of the ASF and the AOO project. The results should respect all licenses and copyright of the original documentation, of course.
>
> It is unfortunate that the good offices of the ODF Authors project were not accepted at a time when it could have made a difference. That option is no longer available. Jean Weber is to be commended for the effort she expended in providing that opportunity. The AOO Project did not exercise the will or the capacity to take that avenue. And here we are, where we have always been, as time goes by.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 04:17
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
>
> Of course, while in the libreoffice code last week, I did notice a tremendous amount of references to and use of "openoffice".
>
> I had been in the help for Libreoffice!
>
> /user/share/libreoffice/help/en-us
>
>
> Attached is a screen capture "default.css".
>
> Now, I am not *as* familiar (yet) with the Apache License as I am with the GPL, So, I think this may be another ticket for legal to review.
>
> In a fork with GPL, no reference to the original software is made.
> I forked remastersys, and worked with the dev to transition, then renamed it respin.
> No instances of the original app/tool are in my code.
>
> However, not sure about Apache license. Most of my dev history is under the GPL.
>
> - but I had conducted a search in libreoffice and returned a large amount of files and directories:
> openoffice
>
> Maybe legal knows, because I even found starmath there.
>
> So: Can a fork use the original tool/app/utility name in the code they release.
>
> It's just odd to see a fork reference the original in the code and directories...
> Having so many references to openoffice in the code really seems to indicate a relationship or something.
> Anyway. as a developer, with respect to the original app - maybe change the references in the code to Libreoffice!
>
> Anyway - Keith, do you know if this is "okay" or not. Or if you can ask legal, they may have an answer.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jean Weber" <je...@gmail.com>
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 2:45:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
>
> Help content is part of the program itself, so of course it's Apache license. User guides are not part of the program, hence the uncertainty of whether they must also be the same Apache license.
> Jean
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:35 PM marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com> wrote:
>>
>> FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0
>>
>>
>> ======================================================================
>> ====
>> Guide content for Writer (example)
>>
>> Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide
>> directory
>> ======================================================================
>> ==== Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the
>> content files in LibreOffice to confirm the license.
>>
>> Just FYI on the status of the help files.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dennis Hamilton" <or...@msn.com>
>> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM
>> Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
>> documentation
>>
>> I believe GPL is still category X.
>>
>> The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code
>> can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that
>> is not OK generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing
>> their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but
>> LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.)
>>
>> The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.
>>
>> If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
>> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
>> documentation
>>
>> I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly license."
>>
>> As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a)
>> several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
>> (b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't have current contact info or they have died.
>>
>> The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we
>> could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs
>> said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
>> *either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not
>> allowed, says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL."
>> IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay.
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Posted by Dennis Hamilton <or...@msn.com>.
The TL;DR: What LibreOffice has done is no use for the creation of AOO documentation.
THE SITUATION
First, what LibreOffice does about cleaning up their help files is not something of concern to AOO (although leaving in links to openoffice.org support would be annoying).
LibreOffice has made two noteworthy forks, one from openoffice.org (under LGPL license), and one from AOO (under Apache license). The second allowed LibreOffice to fork code contributed to the ASF by IBM that was not part of openoffice.org. The Apache-licensed fork also allowed the derivative to be licensed under the MPL, the license offered on current releases of LibreOffice. [L]GPL licenses do not permit this. It is also the case that patches and bug reports at AOO can be absorbed by LibreOffice (and not vice versa) although the maintenance and feature changes in the time since LibreOffice was originally forked makes LibreOffice increasingly different.
Technically, making a derivative that is made available under a different license does not impact the copyright on the original code or the unaltered code in the derivative. That has to do with how copyright works. Generally, one has no copyright on work of another. The prominent exception is work for hire, where the employer has copyright where the employee would have otherwise. That is not the issue here.
I do not speak for the ASF or ASF Legal. I can point out that the ASF has expressed disinterest in policing how others fork code from ASF projects apart from abuses of ASF trademarks.
ASF has a SERIOUS POLICY AND PRACTICE COMMITMENT to clean provenance and good open-source citizenship of ASF projects and what is carried in project repositories and releases. IT IS THAT COMMITMENT that gives rise to the difficulty of building ASF Project content based on the OpenOffice.org documentation produced elsewhere and not part of the Oracle grant of openoffice.org code to the ASF. (This extends to how libraries under different licenses, when optionally used in builds of ASF releases, are excluded from direct inclusion in the ASF Project repositories, a provision that is not helpful in deriving documentation for AOO.)
While it may seem peculiar, it is the case that the ASF has no concern were a third party to fork the OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation and align it with current AOO releases, provided that ASF trademarks were respected and there was no claimed origin and support of the ASF and the AOO project. The results should respect all licenses and copyright of the original documentation, of course.
It is unfortunate that the good offices of the ODF Authors project were not accepted at a time when it could have made a difference. That option is no longer available. Jean Weber is to be commended for the effort she expended in providing that opportunity. The AOO Project did not exercise the will or the capacity to take that avenue. And here we are, where we have always been, as time goes by.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 04:17
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Of course, while in the libreoffice code last week, I did notice a tremendous amount of references to and use of "openoffice".
I had been in the help for Libreoffice!
/user/share/libreoffice/help/en-us
Attached is a screen capture "default.css".
Now, I am not *as* familiar (yet) with the Apache License as I am with the GPL, So, I think this may be another ticket for legal to review.
In a fork with GPL, no reference to the original software is made.
I forked remastersys, and worked with the dev to transition, then renamed it respin.
No instances of the original app/tool are in my code.
However, not sure about Apache license. Most of my dev history is under the GPL.
- but I had conducted a search in libreoffice and returned a large amount of files and directories:
openoffice
Maybe legal knows, because I even found starmath there.
So: Can a fork use the original tool/app/utility name in the code they release.
It's just odd to see a fork reference the original in the code and directories...
Having so many references to openoffice in the code really seems to indicate a relationship or something.
Anyway. as a developer, with respect to the original app - maybe change the references in the code to Libreoffice!
Anyway - Keith, do you know if this is "okay" or not. Or if you can ask legal, they may have an answer.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean Weber" <je...@gmail.com>
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 2:45:41 AM
Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Help content is part of the program itself, so of course it's Apache license. User guides are not part of the program, hence the uncertainty of whether they must also be the same Apache license.
Jean
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:35 PM marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com> wrote:
>
> FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ====
> Guide content for Writer (example)
>
> Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide
> directory
> ======================================================================
> ==== Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the
> content files in LibreOffice to confirm the license.
>
> Just FYI on the status of the help files.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Hamilton" <or...@msn.com>
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
> documentation
>
> I believe GPL is still category X.
>
> The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code
> can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that
> is not OK generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing
> their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but
> LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.)
>
> The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.
>
> If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
> documentation
>
> I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly license."
>
> As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a)
> several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
> (b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't have current contact info or they have died.
>
> The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we
> could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs
> said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
> *either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not
> allowed, says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL."
> IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay.
>
> Jean
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
documentation
Posted by marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com>.
Of course, while in the libreoffice code last week, I did notice a tremendous amount of references to and use of "openoffice".
I had been in the help for Libreoffice!
/user/share/libreoffice/help/en-us
Attached is a screen capture "default.css".
Now, I am not *as* familiar (yet) with the Apache License as I am with the GPL, So, I think this may be another ticket for legal to review.
In a fork with GPL, no reference to the original software is made.
I forked remastersys, and worked with the dev to transition, then renamed it respin.
No instances of the original app/tool are in my code.
However, not sure about Apache license. Most of my dev history is under the GPL.
- but I had conducted a search in libreoffice and returned a large amount of files and directories:
openoffice
Maybe legal knows, because I even found starmath there.
So: Can a fork use the original tool/app/utility name in the code they release.
It's just odd to see a fork reference the original in the code and directories...
Having so many references to openoffice in the code really seems to indicate a relationship or something.
Anyway. as a developer, with respect to the original app - maybe change the references in the code to Libreoffice!
Anyway - Keith, do you know if this is "okay" or not. Or if you can ask legal, they may have an answer.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean Weber" <je...@gmail.com>
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 2:45:41 AM
Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Help content is part of the program itself, so of course it's Apache
license. User guides are not part of the program, hence the
uncertainty of whether they must also be the same Apache license.
Jean
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:35 PM marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com> wrote:
>
> FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0
>
>
> ==========================================================================
> Guide content for Writer (example)
>
> Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide directory
> ==========================================================================
> Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the content files in LibreOffice to confirm the license.
>
> Just FYI on the status of the help files.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Hamilton" <or...@msn.com>
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
>
> I believe GPL is still category X.
>
> The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that is not OK generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.)
>
> The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.
>
> If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
>
> I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly license."
>
> As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a) several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
> (b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't have current contact info or they have died.
>
> The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
> *either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not allowed,
> says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL."
> IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay.
>
> Jean
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
Help content is part of the program itself, so of course it's Apache
license. User guides are not part of the program, hence the
uncertainty of whether they must also be the same Apache license.
Jean
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:35 PM marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com> wrote:
>
> FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0
>
>
> ==========================================================================
> Guide content for Writer (example)
>
> Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide directory
> ==========================================================================
> Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the content files in LibreOffice to confirm the license.
>
> Just FYI on the status of the help files.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Hamilton" <or...@msn.com>
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
>
> I believe GPL is still category X.
>
> The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that is not OK generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.)
>
> The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.
>
> If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
>
> I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly license."
>
> As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a) several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
> (b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't have current contact info or they have died.
>
> The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
> *either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not allowed,
> says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL."
> IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay.
>
> Jean
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo
documentation
Posted by marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com>.
FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0
==========================================================================
Guide content for Writer (example)
Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide directory
==========================================================================
Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the content files in LibreOffice to confirm the license.
Just FYI on the status of the help files.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Hamilton" <or...@msn.com>
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM
Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
I believe GPL is still category X.
The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that is not OK generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.)
The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.
If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly license."
As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a) several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
(b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't have current contact info or they have died.
The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
*either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not allowed,
says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL."
IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay.
Jean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Posted by Dennis Hamilton <or...@msn.com>.
I believe GPL is still category X.
The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that is not OK generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.)
The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.
If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly license."
As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a) several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
(b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't have current contact info or they have died.
The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
*either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not allowed,
says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL."
IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay.
Jean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got
permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it
under a more friendly license."
As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a)
several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
(b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because
we don't have current contact info or they have died.
The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we
could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs
said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
*either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not
allowed, and this page
https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL says "Apache
License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL."
IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay.
Jean
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:36 AM Keith N. McKenna
<ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I have filed a question with ASF Legal seeking guidance on updating the
> older OOo documentation. You can follow it at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-552
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org