You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by FR web forum <oo...@free.fr> on 2011/11/16 16:45:06 UTC
[Discuss] Wiki licence
Hello,
French users would be ready to publish on the Wiki. But which licence apply?
This page is empty: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights
Regards
RE: [Discuss] Wiki licence
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I see that you found it.
I also notice that the history has just your page in it. Was all that lost in the migration?
Previously, somebody had scrubbed the page. Hmm, if I ever had an User page I see that is gone too. Interesting.
I attempted some edits (I was offered an edit button) but the submission failed and I was then logged out and couldn't get back in, so I assume there is some other maintenance going on.
There is a new problem: The Wiki-page editing form has its own terms at the bottom. And that has a link to this page in the License category: <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
I'm going through the password reset procedure now. That should be interesting.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: TJ Frazier [mailto:tjfrazier@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 18:09
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Wiki licence
On 11/27/2011 19:50, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Where, tj?
Small problem. See below.
[ ... ]
The links in the footer are peculiar. Unfortunately, many things I would
consider routine maintenance can only be done by command-line access to
the wiki's underlying files. Changing the footer is one such thing.
I have no idea where the "Copyrights" page is /supposed/ to be; that
link and others contain a colon, which should specify a unique
namespace. I will have to research how to get at it, if that's even
possible. I did create a page which should have shown up, but it didn't.
Back to the old drawing board ...
/tj/
Re: [Discuss] Wiki licence
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 11/27/2011 19:50, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Where, tj?
Small problem. See below.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TJ Frazier [mailto:tjfrazier@cfl.rr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 16:16
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Wiki licence
>
> On 11/27/2011 19:07, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> It seems like a no-brainer to put a statement in there *now* that says
>> new content is contributed under Apache 2.0. It might take longer to
>> figure out privacy policy and other notices. But that shouldn't
>> prevent us from stating the obvious, especially when we receive a note
>> that says there are people waiting to contribute *now*. We can always
>> supplement with additional clauses to the ToU as they are reviewed,
>> etc.
>
> Done. /tj/
>>
>> Remember, what we have now is a wiki with zero statement on copyright
>> or license. That is not helping anyone.
>
The links in the footer are peculiar. Unfortunately, many things I would
consider routine maintenance can only be done by command-line access to
the wiki's underlying files. Changing the footer is one such thing.
I have no idea where the "Copyrights" page is /supposed/ to be; that
link and others contain a colon, which should specify a unique
namespace. I will have to research how to get at it, if that's even
possible. I did create a page which should have shown up, but it didn't.
Back to the old drawing board ...
/tj/
RE: [Discuss] Wiki licence
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Where, tj?
-----Original Message-----
From: TJ Frazier [mailto:tjfrazier@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 16:16
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Wiki licence
On 11/27/2011 19:07, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> It seems like a no-brainer to put a statement in there *now* that says
> new content is contributed under Apache 2.0. It might take longer to
> figure out privacy policy and other notices. But that shouldn't
> prevent us from stating the obvious, especially when we receive a note
> that says there are people waiting to contribute *now*. We can always
> supplement with additional clauses to the ToU as they are reviewed,
> etc.
Done. /tj/
>
> Remember, what we have now is a wiki with zero statement on copyright
> or license. That is not helping anyone.
Re: [Discuss] Wiki licence
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 11/27/2011 19:07, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> It seems like a no-brainer to put a statement in there *now* that says
> new content is contributed under Apache 2.0. It might take longer to
> figure out privacy policy and other notices. But that shouldn't
> prevent us from stating the obvious, especially when we receive a note
> that says there are people waiting to contribute *now*. We can always
> supplement with additional clauses to the ToU as they are reviewed,
> etc.
Done. /tj/
>
> Remember, what we have now is a wiki with zero statement on copyright
> or license. That is not helping anyone.
Re: [Discuss] Wiki licence
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> There have been proposals for providing terms of use for the Apache hosting that also honor what the incoming agreements were for already-existing material. It has also been said that all that is needed is to apply an Apache ALv2 notice. That's problematic for material contributed under other conditions, especially with specific copyright and license notices.
>
It seems like a no-brainer to put a statement in there *now* that says
new content is contributed under Apache 2.0. It might take longer to
figure out privacy policy and other notices. But that shouldn't
prevent us from stating the obvious, especially when we receive a note
that says there are people waiting to contribute *now*. We can always
supplement with additional clauses to the ToU as they are reviewed,
etc.
Remember, what we have now is a wiki with zero statement on copyright
or license. That is not helping anyone.
> It has been suggested that the PPMC needed to decide what it wanted and then ask legal@ what could be had. I know of no action taken on that suggestion though. Now might be a good time.
>
> It was also recommended (over at legal-discuss@) that Oracle terms should not appear on an ASF-hosted property. That has not been implemented.
>
> One place that has a specific discussion is this Bugzilla issue, which proposes a constant ToU for all of the OpenOffice.org web properties hosted by the ASF:
>
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>
>
> This document is annotated to show the changes and how the current contributions are still covered. There's a lot of room for discussion, although some of the questions can only be answered by legal@.
>
> It is also important to have a privacy statement, although I don't know if the ASF is interested in adhering to the US-EU Safe Harbor arrangement for Data Protection and Privacy. Oracle did and that applied by reference in the Oracle ToU. There also needs to be an explicit contact for take-down notices.
>
> There has been limited legal-discuss@ on this, although there is a companion issue there, LEGAL-104, with considerable comment discussion: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>.
>
These are all interesting questions. But I don't think we need this
to be a bottleneck in order to make it clear that new contributions
are under ALv2. This would clear the way for the French users who are
ready to contribute now.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 15:02
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Wiki licence
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:45 AM, FR web forum <oo...@free.fr> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> French users would be ready to publish on the Wiki. But which licence apply?
>> This page is empty: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights
>>
>
> IMHO, we should be requiring Apache 2.0 on all new wiki contributions.
> It puzzles me that this is not yet reflected in the terms of use.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Regards
>>
>
>
RE: [Discuss] Wiki licence
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
There have been proposals for providing terms of use for the Apache hosting that also honor what the incoming agreements were for already-existing material. It has also been said that all that is needed is to apply an Apache ALv2 notice. That's problematic for material contributed under other conditions, especially with specific copyright and license notices.
It has been suggested that the PPMC needed to decide what it wanted and then ask legal@ what could be had. I know of no action taken on that suggestion though. Now might be a good time.
It was also recommended (over at legal-discuss@) that Oracle terms should not appear on an ASF-hosted property. That has not been implemented.
One place that has a specific discussion is this Bugzilla issue, which proposes a constant ToU for all of the OpenOffice.org web properties hosted by the ASF:
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518>
This document is annotated to show the changes and how the current contributions are still covered. There's a lot of room for discussion, although some of the questions can only be answered by legal@.
It is also important to have a privacy statement, although I don't know if the ASF is interested in adhering to the US-EU Safe Harbor arrangement for Data Protection and Privacy. Oracle did and that applied by reference in the Oracle ToU. There also needs to be an explicit contact for take-down notices.
There has been limited legal-discuss@ on this, although there is a companion issue there, LEGAL-104, with considerable comment discussion: <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104>.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 15:02
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Wiki licence
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:45 AM, FR web forum <oo...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> French users would be ready to publish on the Wiki. But which licence apply?
> This page is empty: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights
>
IMHO, we should be requiring Apache 2.0 on all new wiki contributions.
It puzzles me that this is not yet reflected in the terms of use.
-Rob
> Regards
>
Re: [Discuss] Wiki licence
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:45 AM, FR web forum <oo...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> French users would be ready to publish on the Wiki. But which licence apply?
> This page is empty: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights
>
IMHO, we should be requiring Apache 2.0 on all new wiki contributions.
It puzzles me that this is not yet reflected in the terms of use.
-Rob
> Regards
>