You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> on 2013/06/02 03:08:07 UTC
[Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was:
Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
(Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better
to continue the discussion)
Moving the discussion to its own thread, see below for a copy of the
previous messages or better here:
http://markmail.org/message/x6wntz5nwefj7ko3
(just skip the first message that had a completely different purpose...)
The original thread shows two problems. I'll not talk about the first one
here (to not communicate what someone is doing, at the risk of waste the
efforts of someone else that it's working on the same task). The second
problem, the one considered here, is about how do we want to organize the
wiki.
Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
sub sites ("portals") like
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation
etc looking almost the same on all languages.
AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the French
one, though: several of those "portals" do not see activity since years.
I don't think that this "cloning" is possible or even desirable. Of course
an easy way to arrive to the same resources on the different languages *is*
desirable, and for this purpose a consolidated directory structure is
certainly useful, but if instead of /ES/Documentation we use /ES/Manuales I
cannot really see the problem.
Also, there is the problem that the content available on those old sites is
mainly outdated, build by a third party project and some(many)times with
the wrong license. Do we want to update that content or start almost from
scratch with the new user guide under Apache license, moving old content to
a "legacy" section?
Of course starting from scratch is more work, but updating documents with a
cocktail of licenses will be a problem too.
And note that starting from scratch does not mean trashing old content,
it's just saying "this is the old content, maybe it's still useful, but we
are working on the new one here".
I think this was briefly discussed before on the dev list (with no clear
output), but I cannot find the original thread now.
Regards
Ricardo
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>
Date: 2013/6/1
Subject: Re: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"
To: OpenOffice Documentation <do...@openoffice.apache.org>
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/6/1 Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>
>
> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 2013/6/1 Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>
> > >
> > > > Is important to re-gain organization on the documentation project
> > > resources
> > > > like:
> > > > - ToDo List
> > > > - Wishlist
> > > > - Dashboard
> > > > - Help process
> > > >
> > > > This resources althought outdated are pretty helpful for new and
> > > > experienced contributors to organize the work going on.
> > > >
> > > > I generate a spanish version of the portal, but would need more than
> > just
> > > > cloning old information .
> > > >
> > > > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Documentation
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you please use the ES mailing list to discuss whatever you want to
> do
> > > on the ES wiki FIRST of doing it? There is already a documentation
> > section
> > > and a "how to participate" section here
> > >
> > > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Manuales
> > > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Participar
> > >
> > > If you look carefully you'll see other people beside me that started
to
> > > work on the site several month ago. As a matter of fact, the Spanish
> user
> > > guide is more advanced than the English one (just see the macro
> > section)...
> > >
> > > Following discussions on the ES mailing list, the ES wiki was
> completely
> > > cleaned up and rebuilt almost from scratch last year.
> > >
> > >
> > This is not a ES related matter, but a localization convention on
working
> > and organizing languages on the Wiki. There is a PDL and Template for
> > languages, in order to use the different localizations of the projects
> and
> > the menu extensions labeled "Other languages".
> >
> > Documentation or l10n lists is the only propper channels I can think on
> > discussing this since is not only use by ES but the other languages.
> >
> > The content is also outdated on this project, not only on ES. The
> wishlist
> > hasnt been updated since 2009 and there is already a *NeedsRework*
> category
> > for the ToDo List.
> >
> >
> Only the French "documentation" page was updated recently, all the other
> localizations do not see work since several years so you are talking about
> a "convention" set on the old Sun times that nobody seems to follow now
and
> thus not necessarily valid today.
>
> If you want to discuss this or other "conventions" please start a new
> thread.
>
> But even if we accept a general "convention" (something that did not
happen
> yet) and even if we accept that this convention is not a matter for the ES
> list (!), to coordinate the work on the ES wiki IS something to discuss on
> the ES list. After all, we are talking about the work BY and FOR the
> community, and this obviously need proper communication.
>
This is exactly the porpouse of my email, to discuss these conventions, ES
is just a
n example
, but German and French are both following th
e
s
e
conventions
from the get go.
Trying to solve this (or other matters) in a vacuum is a bit waste of
energy and resources IMO.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:56 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In a week or so I'll gain a bit of time to start writing again. I
> > already
> > > > set two new pages for the Draw guide (I'm still thinking about the
> best
> > > way
> > > > to fill them, but anyway...).
> > > >
> > > > I'll use my time half on the EN user guide and half on the ES user
> > guide
> > > so
> > > > progress might seem a bit weird at times... ;)
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Ricardo
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexandro Colorado
> > > Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> > > http://es.openoffice.org
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> http://es.openoffice.org
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://es.openoffice.org
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
@JanI,
Uh oh.
If you don't have explicit agreement from the contributor(s) to a page concerning it being offered under a different license, either leave the existing license or remove the content. Those are the only legally-sanitary options for works still under copyright.
Declaring a work still in copyright to be orphaned does not give you permission to republish it with a different license. Copyright doesn't work that way, not merely in the US.
Secondly, the web site and wiki content were not, as far as I know, included in the grant from Oracle. There has clearly been no objection, the domains were transferred to the ASF, but technically that does not in any way change the copyright status of any of the content. (The source-code grant, by the way, did not transfer any copyright to the ASF. It simply provided a license to the ASF that allowed the ASF to publish and make derivatives under its license. Copyright in the original content continues to abide with Oracle.)
While casual treatment of this sort of thing succeeds in some situations, here the interests and concerns of The Apache Software Foundation as a public-interest entity come into play. It is expected that folks on Apache projects will play nice with the intellectual property of others.
In particular,
2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be
under a new license
is not ever automatically true. If there is already a license, the terms of that license will determine what is possible with a derivative work ("with changes"). Even copying is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, so the license matters there too. In the absence of a license, (2) is not permitted at all by anyone but the copyright holder or someone authorized by the copyright holder (i.e., being licensed to do so).
Finally, and most important, making changes does not give anyone different rights to the parts that survive from the original work. (Fine points about license conditions apply here, but one should never assume that a legitimate licensing of a derivative work has any impact on the IP interests in the surviving content of the original work.)
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: janI [mailto:jani@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 09:02 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
[ ... ]
> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>
> This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about
> (more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the
> license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all
> sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license)
>
I have seen similar things happen in other wikis. The way forward seems to
be
1) announce the intention of changing license.
2) request contributors who do not agree, to remove their pages (we have
mail adresses on the users)
3) give contributors time to do it.
4) change license.
We should put the license in as part of "create user", as an "do you
accept", thereby we only have a problem with existing users.
> > Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of
> the
> > author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
> > impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
> > potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice
> on
> > the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user
> perspective,
> > does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't,
> but
> > this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to
> work
> > around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
> > between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
>
> Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of
> review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based
> in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and
> try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from
> Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF.
>
A cleanup would be nice independent of which way we go
The word re-licensing is not a show stopper.
1) We are not obligated to store those pages for ever, we can, with notice,
delete the pages
2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be
under a new license
rgds
jan I
>
> My 2¢
> Claudio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2013/6/9 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>
>> At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
>> that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
>> here is one possible idea:
>>
>> 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
>> /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
>> outdated
>> 2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
>> described bellow
>>
>
> This could work. But I'm tired of seeing "Legacy" notices everywhere. I'd
> prefer to call the "legacy" stuff "Documentation-3" or something related to
> version 3.
Agree. Calling it Documentation-3 is perfect.
> And "new" stuff should not be "Documentation-AOO" but simply
> "Documentation".
Sure, that was the original idea. I just mentioned Documentation-AOO as a
transitional page where we can work without hurry, and then move the pages
to their right positions.
>From Tuesday I'll start to work on the Draw guide, someone that can help me
with the portal page? I can do it myself, of course, but only on a couple
of weeks.
Regards
Ricardo
> Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the wiki, it is the main subject of
> the wiki, so it is redundant to say in the title that wiki pages discuss
> Apache OpenOffice.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2013/6/9 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>
>> At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
>> that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
>> here is one possible idea:
>>
>> 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
>> /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
>> outdated
>> 2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
>> described bellow
>>
>
> This could work. But I'm tired of seeing "Legacy" notices everywhere. I'd
> prefer to call the "legacy" stuff "Documentation-3" or something related to
> version 3.
Agree. Calling it Documentation-3 is perfect.
> And "new" stuff should not be "Documentation-AOO" but simply
> "Documentation".
Sure, that was the original idea. I just mentioned Documentation-AOO as a
transitional page where we can work without hurry, and then move the pages
to their right positions.
>From Tuesday I'll start to work on the Draw guide, someone that can help me
with the portal page? I can do it myself, of course, but only on a couple
of weeks.
Regards
Ricardo
> Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the wiki, it is the main subject of
> the wiki, so it is redundant to say in the title that wiki pages discuss
> Apache OpenOffice.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2013/6/9 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>
>> At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
>> that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
>> here is one possible idea:
>>
>> 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
>> /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
>> outdated
>> 2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
>> described bellow
>>
>
> This could work. But I'm tired of seeing "Legacy" notices everywhere. I'd
> prefer to call the "legacy" stuff "Documentation-3" or something related to
> version 3.
Agree. Calling it Documentation-3 is perfect.
> And "new" stuff should not be "Documentation-AOO" but simply
> "Documentation".
Sure, that was the original idea. I just mentioned Documentation-AOO as a
transitional page where we can work without hurry, and then move the pages
to their right positions.
>From Tuesday I'll start to work on the Draw guide, someone that can help me
with the portal page? I can do it myself, of course, but only on a couple
of weeks.
Regards
Ricardo
> Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the wiki, it is the main subject of
> the wiki, so it is redundant to say in the title that wiki pages discuss
> Apache OpenOffice.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
> At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
> that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
> here is one possible idea:
>
> 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
> /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
> outdated
> 2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
> described bellow
This could work. But I'm tired of seeing "Legacy" notices everywhere.
I'd prefer to call the "legacy" stuff "Documentation-3" or something
related to version 3. And "new" stuff should not be "Documentation-AOO"
but simply "Documentation". Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the
wiki, it is the main subject of the wiki, so it is redundant to say in
the title that wiki pages discuss Apache OpenOffice.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
> At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
> that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
> here is one possible idea:
>
> 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
> /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
> outdated
> 2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
> described bellow
This could work. But I'm tired of seeing "Legacy" notices everywhere.
I'd prefer to call the "legacy" stuff "Documentation-3" or something
related to version 3. And "new" stuff should not be "Documentation-AOO"
but simply "Documentation". Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the
wiki, it is the main subject of the wiki, so it is redundant to say in
the title that wiki pages discuss Apache OpenOffice.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
> At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
> that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
> here is one possible idea:
>
> 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
> /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
> outdated
> 2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
> described bellow
This could work. But I'm tired of seeing "Legacy" notices everywhere.
I'd prefer to call the "legacy" stuff "Documentation-3" or something
related to version 3. And "new" stuff should not be "Documentation-AOO"
but simply "Documentation". Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the
wiki, it is the main subject of the wiki, so it is redundant to say in
the title that wiki pages discuss Apache OpenOffice.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
(top posting, because I'm not answering any particular post)
At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
here is one possible idea:
1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
/Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
outdated
2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
described bellow
Characteristics for the new portal
* Introduction to the project, how to contact the group and participate,
pending tasks lists, etc.
* Links to the new, Apache licensed documentation (user guide, building
guide, etcetera) indicating that it's a work in progress and that new
contributors are welcomed.
* Add a section that points to the legacy page. Something like "Apache
OpenOffice inherited not only the code from former OpenOffice.org project,
but also a huge amount of documentation. Some of those documents are still
valid, some don't, but you can find all of them here".
Once this new structure is in place for the main EN site, propagate it to
other languages will be easier than fixing current PDL licensed pages.
What do you think?
(1) Maybe it's better to first create the new portal on /Documentation-AOO,
when that new page is ready move /Documentation to /Documentation-Legacy,
then move /Documentation-AOO to /Documentation
Regards
Ricardo
2013/6/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
> I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2,
> although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and
> to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF. (Note that the grant
> to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2
> says.)
>
> My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by
> licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to
> them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my
> iCLA.
>
> Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for
> contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more
> rights than that for any contribution I make. The current statement about
> treating materials not under the default license still applies and I
> suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration.
> The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
> [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I prepared my response before I saw this one.
> >
> > There is still need to be careful around this:
> >
> > However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> > Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> > says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
> > that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> > licenses.
> >
> > 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> > honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> > Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
> >
> > 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> > The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
> > certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> > license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> > can be introduced.
> >
>
> The ICLA says:
>
> "Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
> including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
> is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
> in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
> the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
> "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
> communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
> including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
> lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
> are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
> discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
> is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
> as "Not a Contribution."
>
> So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
> "documentation of", yes?
>
> -Rob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki
> sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the
> categories at
> >>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content
> under
> >>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
> >>> >
> >>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
> >>> >
> >>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
> >>>
> >
> > We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> > ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
> > borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> > as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
> > that can be treated as ALv2.
> >
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
> > move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
> > why remove?
> >
> > The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
> > greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> > we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
> > hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> > the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
> >
> > However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> > existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> > contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
> > that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
> > not be a problem.
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
(top posting, because I'm not answering any particular post)
At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
here is one possible idea:
1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
/Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
outdated
2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
described bellow
Characteristics for the new portal
* Introduction to the project, how to contact the group and participate,
pending tasks lists, etc.
* Links to the new, Apache licensed documentation (user guide, building
guide, etcetera) indicating that it's a work in progress and that new
contributors are welcomed.
* Add a section that points to the legacy page. Something like "Apache
OpenOffice inherited not only the code from former OpenOffice.org project,
but also a huge amount of documentation. Some of those documents are still
valid, some don't, but you can find all of them here".
Once this new structure is in place for the main EN site, propagate it to
other languages will be easier than fixing current PDL licensed pages.
What do you think?
(1) Maybe it's better to first create the new portal on /Documentation-AOO,
when that new page is ready move /Documentation to /Documentation-Legacy,
then move /Documentation-AOO to /Documentation
Regards
Ricardo
2013/6/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
> I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2,
> although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and
> to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF. (Note that the grant
> to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2
> says.)
>
> My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by
> licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to
> them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my
> iCLA.
>
> Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for
> contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more
> rights than that for any contribution I make. The current statement about
> treating materials not under the default license still applies and I
> suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration.
> The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
> [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I prepared my response before I saw this one.
> >
> > There is still need to be careful around this:
> >
> > However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> > Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> > says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
> > that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> > licenses.
> >
> > 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> > honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> > Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
> >
> > 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> > The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
> > certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> > license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> > can be introduced.
> >
>
> The ICLA says:
>
> "Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
> including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
> is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
> in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
> the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
> "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
> communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
> including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
> lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
> are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
> discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
> is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
> as "Not a Contribution."
>
> So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
> "documentation of", yes?
>
> -Rob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki
> sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the
> categories at
> >>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content
> under
> >>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
> >>> >
> >>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
> >>> >
> >>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
> >>>
> >
> > We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> > ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
> > borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> > as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
> > that can be treated as ALv2.
> >
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
> > move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
> > why remove?
> >
> > The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
> > greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> > we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
> > hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> > the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
> >
> > However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> > existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> > contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
> > that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
> > not be a problem.
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
(top posting, because I'm not answering any particular post)
At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
here is one possible idea:
1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
/Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
outdated
2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
described bellow
Characteristics for the new portal
* Introduction to the project, how to contact the group and participate,
pending tasks lists, etc.
* Links to the new, Apache licensed documentation (user guide, building
guide, etcetera) indicating that it's a work in progress and that new
contributors are welcomed.
* Add a section that points to the legacy page. Something like "Apache
OpenOffice inherited not only the code from former OpenOffice.org project,
but also a huge amount of documentation. Some of those documents are still
valid, some don't, but you can find all of them here".
Once this new structure is in place for the main EN site, propagate it to
other languages will be easier than fixing current PDL licensed pages.
What do you think?
(1) Maybe it's better to first create the new portal on /Documentation-AOO,
when that new page is ready move /Documentation to /Documentation-Legacy,
then move /Documentation-AOO to /Documentation
Regards
Ricardo
2013/6/5 Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
> I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2,
> although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and
> to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF. (Note that the grant
> to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2
> says.)
>
> My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by
> licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to
> them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my
> iCLA.
>
> Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for
> contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more
> rights than that for any contribution I make. The current statement about
> treating materials not under the default license still applies and I
> suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration.
> The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
> [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I prepared my response before I saw this one.
> >
> > There is still need to be careful around this:
> >
> > However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> > Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> > says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
> > that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> > licenses.
> >
> > 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> > honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> > Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
> >
> > 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> > The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
> > certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> > license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> > can be introduced.
> >
>
> The ICLA says:
>
> "Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
> including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
> is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
> in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
> the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
> "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
> communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
> including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
> lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
> are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
> discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
> is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
> as "Not a Contribution."
>
> So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
> "documentation of", yes?
>
> -Rob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki
> sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the
> categories at
> >>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content
> under
> >>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
> >>> >
> >>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
> >>> >
> >>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
> >>>
> >
> > We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> > ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
> > borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> > as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
> > that can be treated as ALv2.
> >
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
> > move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
> > why remove?
> >
> > The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
> > greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> > we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
> > hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> > the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
> >
> > However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> > existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> > contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
> > that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
> > not be a problem.
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2, although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF. (Note that the grant to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2 says.)
My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my iCLA.
Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more rights than that for any contribution I make. The current statement about treating materials not under the default license still applies and I suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration. The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> I prepared my response before I saw this one.
>
> There is still need to be careful around this:
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
> that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> licenses.
>
> 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
>
> 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
> certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> can be introduced.
>
The ICLA says:
"Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
"submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
as "Not a Contribution."
So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
"documentation of", yes?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> [ ... ]
>>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>>> >
>>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>>> >
>>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>>
>
> We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
> borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
> that can be treated as ALv2.
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
> move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
> why remove?
>
> The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
> greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
> hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
> that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
> not be a problem.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2, although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF. (Note that the grant to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2 says.)
My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my iCLA.
Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more rights than that for any contribution I make. The current statement about treating materials not under the default license still applies and I suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration. The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> I prepared my response before I saw this one.
>
> There is still need to be careful around this:
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
> that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> licenses.
>
> 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
>
> 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
> certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> can be introduced.
>
The ICLA says:
"Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
"submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
as "Not a Contribution."
So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
"documentation of", yes?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> [ ... ]
>>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>>> >
>>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>>> >
>>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>>
>
> We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
> borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
> that can be treated as ALv2.
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
> move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
> why remove?
>
> The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
> greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
> hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
> that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
> not be a problem.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2, although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF. (Note that the grant to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2 says.)
My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my iCLA.
Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more rights than that for any contribution I make. The current statement about treating materials not under the default license still applies and I suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration. The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> I prepared my response before I saw this one.
>
> There is still need to be careful around this:
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
> that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> licenses.
>
> 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
>
> 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
> certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> can be introduced.
>
The ICLA says:
"Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
"submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
as "Not a Contribution."
So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
"documentation of", yes?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> [ ... ]
>>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>>> >
>>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>>> >
>>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>>
>
> We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
> borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
> that can be treated as ALv2.
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
> move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
> why remove?
>
> The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
> greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
> hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
> that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
> not be a problem.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> I prepared my response before I saw this one.
>
> There is still need to be careful around this:
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
> that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> licenses.
>
> 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
>
> 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
> certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> can be introduced.
>
The ICLA says:
"Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
"submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
as "Not a Contribution."
So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
"documentation of", yes?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> [ ... ]
>>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>>> >
>>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>>> >
>>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>>
>
> We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
> borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
> that can be treated as ALv2.
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
> move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
> why remove?
>
> The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
> greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
> hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
> that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
> not be a problem.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> I prepared my response before I saw this one.
>
> There is still need to be careful around this:
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
> that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> licenses.
>
> 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
>
> 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
> certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> can be introduced.
>
The ICLA says:
"Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
"submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
as "Not a Contribution."
So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
"documentation of", yes?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> [ ... ]
>>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>>> >
>>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>>> >
>>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>>
>
> We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
> borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
> that can be treated as ALv2.
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
> move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
> why remove?
>
> The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
> greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
> hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
> that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
> not be a problem.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> I prepared my response before I saw this one.
>
> There is still need to be careful around this:
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements
> Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
> says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
> that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
> licenses.
>
> 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
> honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
> Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
>
> 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
> The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
> certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
> license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
> can be introduced.
>
The ICLA says:
"Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship,
including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that
is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion
in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by
the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition,
"submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written
communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives,
including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of
discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that
is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You
as "Not a Contribution."
So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is
"documentation of", yes?
-Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
>
> [ ... ]
>>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>>> >
>>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>>> >
>>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>>
>
> We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
> ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
> borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
> as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
> that can be treated as ALv2.
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
> move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
> why remove?
>
> The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
> greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
> we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
> hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
> the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
>
> However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
> existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
> contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
> that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
> not be a problem.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
+1
I prepared my response before I saw this one.
There is still need to be careful around this:
However, when we create new material, including enhancements
Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
licenses.
1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
can be introduced.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
[ ... ]
>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>> >
>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>
We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
that can be treated as ALv2.
[ ... ]
This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
why remove?
The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
not be a problem.
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
+1
I prepared my response before I saw this one.
There is still need to be careful around this:
However, when we create new material, including enhancements
Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which
says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean
that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple
licenses.
1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be
honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific
Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible.
2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for
The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we
certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current
license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2
can be introduced.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
[ ... ]
>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>> >
>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>
We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
that can be treated as ALv2.
[ ... ]
This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
why remove?
The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
not be a problem.
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM, janI <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 5 June 2013 16:36, Claudio Filho <fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> 2013/6/3 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>:
>> > 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>> >
>> >> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all
>> the
>> >>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea,
>> with
>> >>> sub sites ("portals") like
>> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
>> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
>> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
>> >>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
>>
>> Ricardo, we can go by two ways, based in commom practice for mediawiki:
>> http://wiki.../Documentation and http://wiki.../Documentation/<lang> -
>> for localized pages from the core
>> http://wiki.../<LANG>/<anything> - for local/native texts.
>>
>> >> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
>> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
>> >> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
>> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
>> >> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
>>
>> The *Template:* "technology" is for many other things, like menus,
>> sorts, and others. I think that we can use this first step based in
>> review the core and a way to translate it for other languages.
>>
>> How our system is a mediawiki, i did a research about localization in
>> this software with the last methods, where i found some interesting
>> contents. I believe that with translate extension for mediawiki we
>> have the tool for this goal.
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Making_Multilingual_Wikis_a_Reality_-_Niklas_Laxstr%C3%B6m_and_Claus_Christensen.ogv
>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate
>> http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWikie
>>
>
> I checked the extension, it is possible to install it on our mwiki.
>
>
>> >> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
>> >> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages
>> as
>> >> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
>> >> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
>> >> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated
>> to
>> >> reflect the changes too.
>>
>> If i understood right, the translate extension will help us in this task.
>>
>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>> >
>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>
We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
that can be treated as ALv2.
>> This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about
>> (more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the
>> license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all
>> sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license)
>>
>
> I have seen similar things happen in other wikis. The way forward seems to
> be
> 1) announce the intention of changing license.
> 2) request contributors who do not agree, to remove their pages (we have
> mail adresses on the users)
> 3) give contributors time to do it.
> 4) change license.
>
This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
why remove?
The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
not be a problem.
> We should put the license in as part of "create user", as an "do you
> accept", thereby we only have a problem with existing users.
>
This would be nice.
>
>> > Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of
>> the
>> > author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
>> > impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
>> > potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice
>> on
>> > the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user
>> perspective,
>> > does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't,
>> but
>> > this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to
>> work
>> > around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
>> > between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
>>
>> Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of
>> review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based
>> in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and
>> try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from
>> Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF.
>>
The website contents were not included in the SGA from Oracle. So the
license is from the original authors.
>
> A cleanup would be nice independent of which way we go
>
> The word re-licensing is not a show stopper.
> 1) We are not obligated to store those pages for ever, we can, with notice,
> delete the pages
> 2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be
> under a new license
>
In any case I'd love to have the problem where we have abundant AOO
4.0 documentation in English and our main concern was how to translate
it.
Regards,
-Rob
> rgds
> jan I
>
>>
>> My 2¢
>> Claudio
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
@JanI,
Uh oh.
If you don't have explicit agreement from the contributor(s) to a page concerning it being offered under a different license, either leave the existing license or remove the content. Those are the only legally-sanitary options for works still under copyright.
Declaring a work still in copyright to be orphaned does not give you permission to republish it with a different license. Copyright doesn't work that way, not merely in the US.
Secondly, the web site and wiki content were not, as far as I know, included in the grant from Oracle. There has clearly been no objection, the domains were transferred to the ASF, but technically that does not in any way change the copyright status of any of the content. (The source-code grant, by the way, did not transfer any copyright to the ASF. It simply provided a license to the ASF that allowed the ASF to publish and make derivatives under its license. Copyright in the original content continues to abide with Oracle.)
While casual treatment of this sort of thing succeeds in some situations, here the interests and concerns of The Apache Software Foundation as a public-interest entity come into play. It is expected that folks on Apache projects will play nice with the intellectual property of others.
In particular,
2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be
under a new license
is not ever automatically true. If there is already a license, the terms of that license will determine what is possible with a derivative work ("with changes"). Even copying is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, so the license matters there too. In the absence of a license, (2) is not permitted at all by anyone but the copyright holder or someone authorized by the copyright holder (i.e., being licensed to do so).
Finally, and most important, making changes does not give anyone different rights to the parts that survive from the original work. (Fine points about license conditions apply here, but one should never assume that a legitimate licensing of a derivative work has any impact on the IP interests in the surviving content of the original work.)
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: janI [mailto:jani@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 09:02 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: l10n@openoffice.apache.org; docs@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
[ ... ]
> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>
> This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about
> (more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the
> license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all
> sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license)
>
I have seen similar things happen in other wikis. The way forward seems to
be
1) announce the intention of changing license.
2) request contributors who do not agree, to remove their pages (we have
mail adresses on the users)
3) give contributors time to do it.
4) change license.
We should put the license in as part of "create user", as an "do you
accept", thereby we only have a problem with existing users.
> > Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of
> the
> > author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
> > impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
> > potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice
> on
> > the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user
> perspective,
> > does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't,
> but
> > this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to
> work
> > around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
> > between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
>
> Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of
> review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based
> in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and
> try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from
> Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF.
>
A cleanup would be nice independent of which way we go
The word re-licensing is not a show stopper.
1) We are not obligated to store those pages for ever, we can, with notice,
delete the pages
2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be
under a new license
rgds
jan I
>
> My 2¢
> Claudio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM, janI <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 5 June 2013 16:36, Claudio Filho <fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> 2013/6/3 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>:
>> > 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>> >
>> >> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all
>> the
>> >>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea,
>> with
>> >>> sub sites ("portals") like
>> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
>> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
>> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
>> >>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
>>
>> Ricardo, we can go by two ways, based in commom practice for mediawiki:
>> http://wiki.../Documentation and http://wiki.../Documentation/<lang> -
>> for localized pages from the core
>> http://wiki.../<LANG>/<anything> - for local/native texts.
>>
>> >> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
>> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
>> >> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
>> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
>> >> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
>>
>> The *Template:* "technology" is for many other things, like menus,
>> sorts, and others. I think that we can use this first step based in
>> review the core and a way to translate it for other languages.
>>
>> How our system is a mediawiki, i did a research about localization in
>> this software with the last methods, where i found some interesting
>> contents. I believe that with translate extension for mediawiki we
>> have the tool for this goal.
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Making_Multilingual_Wikis_a_Reality_-_Niklas_Laxstr%C3%B6m_and_Claus_Christensen.ogv
>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate
>> http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWikie
>>
>
> I checked the extension, it is possible to install it on our mwiki.
>
>
>> >> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
>> >> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages
>> as
>> >> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
>> >> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
>> >> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated
>> to
>> >> reflect the changes too.
>>
>> If i understood right, the translate extension will help us in this task.
>>
>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>> >
>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>>
We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in
ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to
borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation
as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of
that can be treated as ALv2.
>> This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about
>> (more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the
>> license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all
>> sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license)
>>
>
> I have seen similar things happen in other wikis. The way forward seems to
> be
> 1) announce the intention of changing license.
> 2) request contributors who do not agree, to remove their pages (we have
> mail adresses on the users)
> 3) give contributors time to do it.
> 4) change license.
>
This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just
move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant,
why remove?
The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have
greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than
we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all
hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on
the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard.
However, when we create new material, including enhancements of
existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our
contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward
that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should
not be a problem.
> We should put the license in as part of "create user", as an "do you
> accept", thereby we only have a problem with existing users.
>
This would be nice.
>
>> > Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of
>> the
>> > author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
>> > impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
>> > potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice
>> on
>> > the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user
>> perspective,
>> > does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't,
>> but
>> > this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to
>> work
>> > around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
>> > between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
>>
>> Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of
>> review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based
>> in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and
>> try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from
>> Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF.
>>
The website contents were not included in the SGA from Oracle. So the
license is from the original authors.
>
> A cleanup would be nice independent of which way we go
>
> The word re-licensing is not a show stopper.
> 1) We are not obligated to store those pages for ever, we can, with notice,
> delete the pages
> 2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be
> under a new license
>
In any case I'd love to have the problem where we have abundant AOO
4.0 documentation in English and our main concern was how to translate
it.
Regards,
-Rob
> rgds
> jan I
>
>>
>> My 2¢
>> Claudio
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 5 June 2013 16:36, Claudio Filho <fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2013/6/3 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>:
> > 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> >
> >> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
> >>
> >>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all
> the
> >>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea,
> with
> >>> sub sites ("portals") like
> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
> >>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
>
> Ricardo, we can go by two ways, based in commom practice for mediawiki:
> http://wiki.../Documentation and http://wiki.../Documentation/<lang> -
> for localized pages from the core
> http://wiki.../<LANG>/<anything> - for local/native texts.
>
> >> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
> >> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
> >> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
>
> The *Template:* "technology" is for many other things, like menus,
> sorts, and others. I think that we can use this first step based in
> review the core and a way to translate it for other languages.
>
> How our system is a mediawiki, i did a research about localization in
> this software with the last methods, where i found some interesting
> contents. I believe that with translate extension for mediawiki we
> have the tool for this goal.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Making_Multilingual_Wikis_a_Reality_-_Niklas_Laxstr%C3%B6m_and_Claus_Christensen.ogv
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate
> http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWikie
>
I checked the extension, it is possible to install it on our mwiki.
> >> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
> >> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages
> as
> >> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
> >> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
> >> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated
> to
> >> reflect the changes too.
>
> If i understood right, the translate extension will help us in this task.
>
> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
> >
> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>
> This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about
> (more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the
> license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all
> sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license)
>
I have seen similar things happen in other wikis. The way forward seems to
be
1) announce the intention of changing license.
2) request contributors who do not agree, to remove their pages (we have
mail adresses on the users)
3) give contributors time to do it.
4) change license.
We should put the license in as part of "create user", as an "do you
accept", thereby we only have a problem with existing users.
> > Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of
> the
> > author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
> > impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
> > potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice
> on
> > the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user
> perspective,
> > does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't,
> but
> > this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to
> work
> > around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
> > between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
>
> Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of
> review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based
> in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and
> try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from
> Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF.
>
A cleanup would be nice independent of which way we go
The word re-licensing is not a show stopper.
1) We are not obligated to store those pages for ever, we can, with notice,
delete the pages
2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be
under a new license
rgds
jan I
>
> My 2¢
> Claudio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 5 June 2013 16:36, Claudio Filho <fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2013/6/3 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>:
> > 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> >
> >> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
> >>
> >>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all
> the
> >>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea,
> with
> >>> sub sites ("portals") like
> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
> >>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
> >>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
>
> Ricardo, we can go by two ways, based in commom practice for mediawiki:
> http://wiki.../Documentation and http://wiki.../Documentation/<lang> -
> for localized pages from the core
> http://wiki.../<LANG>/<anything> - for local/native texts.
>
> >> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
> >> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
> >> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
>
> The *Template:* "technology" is for many other things, like menus,
> sorts, and others. I think that we can use this first step based in
> review the core and a way to translate it for other languages.
>
> How our system is a mediawiki, i did a research about localization in
> this software with the last methods, where i found some interesting
> contents. I believe that with translate extension for mediawiki we
> have the tool for this goal.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Making_Multilingual_Wikis_a_Reality_-_Niklas_Laxstr%C3%B6m_and_Claus_Christensen.ogv
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate
> http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWikie
>
I checked the extension, it is possible to install it on our mwiki.
> >> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
> >> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages
> as
> >> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
> >> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
> >> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated
> to
> >> reflect the changes too.
>
> If i understood right, the translate extension will help us in this task.
>
> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
> >
> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>
> This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about
> (more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the
> license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all
> sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license)
>
I have seen similar things happen in other wikis. The way forward seems to
be
1) announce the intention of changing license.
2) request contributors who do not agree, to remove their pages (we have
mail adresses on the users)
3) give contributors time to do it.
4) change license.
We should put the license in as part of "create user", as an "do you
accept", thereby we only have a problem with existing users.
> > Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of
> the
> > author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
> > impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
> > potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice
> on
> > the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user
> perspective,
> > does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't,
> but
> > this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to
> work
> > around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
> > between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
>
> Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of
> review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based
> in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and
> try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from
> Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF.
>
A cleanup would be nice independent of which way we go
The word re-licensing is not a show stopper.
1) We are not obligated to store those pages for ever, we can, with notice,
delete the pages
2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be
under a new license
rgds
jan I
>
> My 2¢
> Claudio
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Claudio Filho <fi...@gmail.com>.
Hi
2013/6/3 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>:
> 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>
>> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>>
>>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
>>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
>>> sub sites ("portals") like
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
>>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
Ricardo, we can go by two ways, based in commom practice for mediawiki:
http://wiki.../Documentation and http://wiki.../Documentation/<lang> -
for localized pages from the core
http://wiki.../<LANG>/<anything> - for local/native texts.
>> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
>> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
>> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
The *Template:* "technology" is for many other things, like menus,
sorts, and others. I think that we can use this first step based in
review the core and a way to translate it for other languages.
How our system is a mediawiki, i did a research about localization in
this software with the last methods, where i found some interesting
contents. I believe that with translate extension for mediawiki we
have the tool for this goal.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Making_Multilingual_Wikis_a_Reality_-_Niklas_Laxstr%C3%B6m_and_Claus_Christensen.ogv
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWiki
>> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
>> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages as
>> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
>> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
>> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to
>> reflect the changes too.
If i understood right, the translate extension will help us in this task.
> All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
> the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
> Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>
> PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about
(more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the
license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all
sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license)
> Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the
> author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
> impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
> potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on
> the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective,
> does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but
> this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work
> around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
> between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of
review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based
in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and
try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from
Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF.
My 2¢
Claudio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Claudio Filho <fi...@gmail.com>.
Hi
2013/6/3 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>:
> 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>
>> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>>
>>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
>>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
>>> sub sites ("portals") like
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
>>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
Ricardo, we can go by two ways, based in commom practice for mediawiki:
http://wiki.../Documentation and http://wiki.../Documentation/<lang> -
for localized pages from the core
http://wiki.../<LANG>/<anything> - for local/native texts.
>> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
>> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
>> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
The *Template:* "technology" is for many other things, like menus,
sorts, and others. I think that we can use this first step based in
review the core and a way to translate it for other languages.
How our system is a mediawiki, i did a research about localization in
this software with the last methods, where i found some interesting
contents. I believe that with translate extension for mediawiki we
have the tool for this goal.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Making_Multilingual_Wikis_a_Reality_-_Niklas_Laxstr%C3%B6m_and_Claus_Christensen.ogv
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWiki
>> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
>> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages as
>> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
>> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
>> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to
>> reflect the changes too.
If i understood right, the translate extension will help us in this task.
> All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
> the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
> Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>
> PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about
(more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the
license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all
sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license)
> Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the
> author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
> impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
> potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on
> the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective,
> does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but
> this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work
> around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
> between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of
review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based
in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and
try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from
Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF.
My 2¢
Claudio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Fwd: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
Ops! I forgot to add dev and doc as CC...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
Date: 2013/6/3
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
To: l10n@openoffice.apache.org
2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>
>> (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better
>> to continue the discussion)
>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
>> sub sites ("portals") like
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
>>
>
> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
>
> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages as
> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to
> reflect the changes too.
>
>
> AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the
>> French
>> one, though: several of those "portals" do not see activity since years.
>>
>
> Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated: information
> in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases, and I think it
> makes sense to continue using it rather than "starting clean" there too
> (unless there are plans for a major rewrite).
>
All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the
author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on
the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective,
does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but
this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work
around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
Regards
Ricardo
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<l1...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.**org<l1...@openoffice.apache.org>
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>
>> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>>
>>> (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better
>>> to continue the discussion)
>>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
>>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
>>> sub sites ("portals") like
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
>>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
>>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
>>>
>>
>> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
>> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
>> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
>>
>> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
>> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages as
>> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
>> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
>> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to
>> reflect the changes too.
>>
>>
>> AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the
>>> French
>>> one, though: several of those "portals" do not see activity since years.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated: information
>> in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases, and I think it
>> makes sense to continue using it rather than "starting clean" there too
>> (unless there are plans for a major rewrite).
>>
>
> All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
> the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
> Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
>
> PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
>
Right. So this is not good for downstream consumers. Anyone who
wants to modify and redistribute AOO on commercial terms would want to
also modify and redistribute documentation. So we do a service for
them if we can ensure the documentation is under the same permissive
license as the code.
As for managing the translations, one option is to do the authoring in
English, then import the text (HTML or Wikitext) into Pootle and
translate it that way. Then we can generate the translated websites
without having translators deal with the HTML or wiki syntax directly.
-Rob
> Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the
> author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
> impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
> potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on
> the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective,
> does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but
> this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work
> around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
> between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<l1...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.**org<l1...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org
Fwd: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
Ops! I forgot to add dev and doc as CC...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
Date: 2013/6/3
Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
To: l10n@openoffice.apache.org
2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>
>> (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better
>> to continue the discussion)
>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
>> sub sites ("portals") like
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
>>
>
> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
>
> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages as
> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to
> reflect the changes too.
>
>
> AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the
>> French
>> one, though: several of those "portals" do not see activity since years.
>>
>
> Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated: information
> in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases, and I think it
> makes sense to continue using it rather than "starting clean" there too
> (unless there are plans for a major rewrite).
>
All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the
author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on
the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective,
does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but
this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work
around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
Regards
Ricardo
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<l1...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.**org<l1...@openoffice.apache.org>
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>
>> (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better
>> to continue the discussion)
>> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
>> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
>> sub sites ("portals") like
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation>
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation>
>> http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation>
>> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
>>
>
> This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test>
> added by Claudio a few months ago. See
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang>
> to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
>
> As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
> "Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages as
> volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
> editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
> only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to
> reflect the changes too.
>
>
> AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the
>> French
>> one, though: several of those "portals" do not see activity since years.
>>
>
> Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated: information
> in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases, and I think it
> makes sense to continue using it rather than "starting clean" there too
> (unless there are plans for a major rewrite).
>
All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at
the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under
Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html
PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license.
Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the
author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost
impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A
potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on
the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective,
does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but
this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work
around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation
between new material (under Apache) and legacy content?
Regards
Ricardo
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<l1...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.**org<l1...@openoffice.apache.org>
>
>
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
> (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better
> to continue the discussion)
> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
> sub sites ("portals") like
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation
> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test
added by Claudio a few months ago. See
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang
to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
"Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages
as volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated
to reflect the changes too.
> AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the French
> one, though: several of those "portals" do not see activity since years.
Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated:
information in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases,
and I think it makes sense to continue using it rather than "starting
clean" there too (unless there are plans for a major rewrite).
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
> (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better
> to continue the discussion)
> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
> sub sites ("portals") like
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation
> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test
added by Claudio a few months ago. See
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang
to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
"Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages
as volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated
to reflect the changes too.
> AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the French
> one, though: several of those "portals" do not see activity since years.
Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated:
information in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases,
and I think it makes sense to continue using it rather than "starting
clean" there too (unless there are plans for a major rewrite).
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites
[was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
> (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better
> to continue the discussion)
> Do we want to "clone", for example, the documentation section on all the
> localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with
> sub sites ("portals") like
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation
> etc looking almost the same on all languages.
This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test
added by Claudio a few months ago. See
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang
to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case.
As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a
"Master copy" in English and then translate it in the various languages
as volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from
editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language
only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated
to reflect the changes too.
> AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the French
> one, though: several of those "portals" do not see activity since years.
Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated:
information in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases,
and I think it makes sense to continue using it rather than "starting
clean" there too (unless there are plans for a major rewrite).
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org