You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> on 2011/06/28 18:27:18 UTC

Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Let me state my assumptions, which might be incorrect, but I think it
is worth being explicit, so my errors can be more easily corrected.

Apache projects make releases.  These releases consist at least of
tarballs containing source code. The contents of releases must be
consist only of files under the Apache 2.0 license, or licenses which
ASF has declared to be compatible with it.  This includes not only
source code files, but also any bundled documentation.

To ensure that the releases remain compatible with Apache 2.0, the
repositories that are used to feed into the releases are also
controlled.  So SVN can only be written by those who have signed the
ICLA.  A wiki used for bundled product documentation is restricted to
committers as well.  Presumably, to the extent we include translation
files in our releases, these would need a similar level of attention,
in terms of license and access control.

Am I anywhere close in the above?

If so, that leads me to two questions:


1) Are there any required license issues that we need to heed related
to our website?  Assume for sake of argument that we're talking about
web site content that never becomes part of a release.   So user
guides, tutorials, as-is document templates that users could download,
3rd party plugins, additional 3rd party translation packs, user
forums, etc.  Is there any requirement that these all be harmonized on
Apache 2.0 and compatible licenses?  Or can we have a mix of licenses
to that content, hosted by Apache in a sufficiently sand boxed
environment?

In other words, are the project's websites and all that we host at
Apache required to be under an Apache-compatible license?  Or can we
have copyleft "extras" that we host, with caveats, but do not build
ourselves or include in our releases?


2) If an existing independent group wishes to remain independent, and
develop documentation or translations, or other similar modules, and
then contribute it to the Apache OpenOffice project for inclusion in
an official release, can this be done?   Assume that the work is made
available to us under a compatible license, so it is (in that sense)
allowable in a release.

Is there any mechanism for an Apache project to routinely accept and
release such modules?  Or would this require an SGA/Incubation
proposal each time?  Or is there any streamlined way of doing this?


I'm not arguing that #1 or #2 is a good idea or not.  But some
conversations seem to be leading to these directions, so I think it is
worth clarifying exactly what is allowed.

Thanks!

-Rob

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 19:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> It might help to be explicit about what you want to do with the user
>> guides.  Are you:
>>
>> 1) Looking to have a link from the Apache OOo web site to the user guides?
>>
>> 2) Having the publication form of the user guides hosted by the Apache
>> OOo website?
>>
>> 3) Periodically contributing the user guides to Apache OOo for
>> inclusion in a release?
> 
> 1) and/or 2) Yes, if AOOo in interested in either of those options. Or
> hosted (as ODT/PDF) on the wiki, with links to the wiki from the
> website. We would be happy with any of those arrangements.
> 
> 3) No. I do not envision user guides being included in a release. They
> never have been, and I think it would be impractical because they are
> never completed in time for inclusion in a release.
> 
> And repeating from another note from me, just to keep the info together:
> 
> We would welcome participation by any and all members of AOOo, and
> oversight and approval by the AOOo (P)PMC at any stage, as long as we
> don't have to use SVN or other unfamiliar tools during the document
> production process. We just want to continue using our own website and
> production methods.
> 
> --Jean
> 
> 

Agreed.

Andy

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 22:17, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
>...
> Speaking of approvals, the OOo logo on the web pages.  I though that we
> were in the process of receiving the trademarks from Oracle.  Is this
> still the case?  If so did they grant us use of the trademark?

We can use the OOo logo on pages hosted by the ASF. That is not a problem.

Pages on *other* sites need to follow the Marks policy[1] that Rob referred to.

Cheers,
-g

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 20:44 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 19:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> It might help to be explicit about what you want to do with the user
>>>>> guides.  Are you:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Looking to have a link from the Apache OOo web site to the user guides?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Having the publication form of the user guides hosted by the Apache
>>>>> OOo website?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Periodically contributing the user guides to Apache OOo for
>>>>> inclusion in a release?
>>>>
>>>> 1) and/or 2) Yes, if AOOo in interested in either of those options. Or
>>>> hosted (as ODT/PDF) on the wiki, with links to the wiki from the
>>>> website. We would be happy with any of those arrangements.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did you see how Apache Subversion was handling its user guide?
>>>
>>> http://subversion.apache.org/
>>>
>>> (see in the side panel on left)
>>>
>>> That might be a good model for how an external user guide project can
>>> relate to an Apache project.  This looks more like option #1 above.
>>
>>
>> I think that is a good approach and I like it.
>>
> 
> If you take that approach then I don't think there is any decision
> that we need to take now, at least not in the Apache project.  But
> when we have an end-user facing web portal hosted by Apache (the
> future home of http://www.openoffice.org) then we'll want to have a
> discussion on how we link to your user guide.
> 
> One other thing.  I think the Apache trademark policy is also relevant here:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
> 
> You probably will want to review that and see if you would need any
> approvals from Apache for the trademarks and/or logos that you use in
> the user guide.
> 

Speaking of approvals, the OOo logo on the web pages.  I though that we
were in the process of receiving the trademarks from Oracle.  Is this
still the case?  If so did they grant us use of the trademark?

Andy

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 20:44 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 19:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> It might help to be explicit about what you want to do with the user
>> >> guides.  Are you:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Looking to have a link from the Apache OOo web site to the user guides?
>> >>
>> >> 2) Having the publication form of the user guides hosted by the Apache
>> >> OOo website?
>> >>
>> >> 3) Periodically contributing the user guides to Apache OOo for
>> >> inclusion in a release?
>> >
>> > 1) and/or 2) Yes, if AOOo in interested in either of those options. Or
>> > hosted (as ODT/PDF) on the wiki, with links to the wiki from the
>> > website. We would be happy with any of those arrangements.
>> >
>>
>> Did you see how Apache Subversion was handling its user guide?
>>
>> http://subversion.apache.org/
>>
>> (see in the side panel on left)
>>
>> That might be a good model for how an external user guide project can
>> relate to an Apache project.  This looks more like option #1 above.
>
>
> I think that is a good approach and I like it.
>

If you take that approach then I don't think there is any decision
that we need to take now, at least not in the Apache project.  But
when we have an end-user facing web portal hosted by Apache (the
future home of http://www.openoffice.org) then we'll want to have a
discussion on how we link to your user guide.

One other thing.  I think the Apache trademark policy is also relevant here:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/

You probably will want to review that and see if you would need any
approvals from Apache for the trademarks and/or logos that you use in
the user guide.

-Rob

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 20:44 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 19:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> It might help to be explicit about what you want to do with the user
> >> guides.  Are you:
> >>
> >> 1) Looking to have a link from the Apache OOo web site to the user guides?
> >>
> >> 2) Having the publication form of the user guides hosted by the Apache
> >> OOo website?
> >>
> >> 3) Periodically contributing the user guides to Apache OOo for
> >> inclusion in a release?
> >
> > 1) and/or 2) Yes, if AOOo in interested in either of those options. Or
> > hosted (as ODT/PDF) on the wiki, with links to the wiki from the
> > website. We would be happy with any of those arrangements.
> >
> 
> Did you see how Apache Subversion was handling its user guide?
> 
> http://subversion.apache.org/
> 
> (see in the side panel on left)
> 
> That might be a good model for how an external user guide project can
> relate to an Apache project.  This looks more like option #1 above.


I think that is a good approach and I like it. 

--Jean

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 19:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> It might help to be explicit about what you want to do with the user
>> guides.  Are you:
>>
>> 1) Looking to have a link from the Apache OOo web site to the user guides?
>>
>> 2) Having the publication form of the user guides hosted by the Apache
>> OOo website?
>>
>> 3) Periodically contributing the user guides to Apache OOo for
>> inclusion in a release?
>
> 1) and/or 2) Yes, if AOOo in interested in either of those options. Or
> hosted (as ODT/PDF) on the wiki, with links to the wiki from the
> website. We would be happy with any of those arrangements.
>

Did you see how Apache Subversion was handling its user guide?

http://subversion.apache.org/

(see in the side panel on left)

That might be a good model for how an external user guide project can
relate to an Apache project.  This looks more like option #1 above.


> 3) No. I do not envision user guides being included in a release. They
> never have been, and I think it would be impractical because they are
> never completed in time for inclusion in a release.
>
> And repeating from another note from me, just to keep the info together:
>
> We would welcome participation by any and all members of AOOo, and
> oversight and approval by the AOOo (P)PMC at any stage, as long as we
> don't have to use SVN or other unfamiliar tools during the document
> production process. We just want to continue using our own website and
> production methods.
>
> --Jean
>
>

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 19:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> It might help to be explicit about what you want to do with the user
> guides.  Are you:
> 
> 1) Looking to have a link from the Apache OOo web site to the user guides?
> 
> 2) Having the publication form of the user guides hosted by the Apache
> OOo website?
> 
> 3) Periodically contributing the user guides to Apache OOo for
> inclusion in a release?

1) and/or 2) Yes, if AOOo in interested in either of those options. Or
hosted (as ODT/PDF) on the wiki, with links to the wiki from the
website. We would be happy with any of those arrangements.

3) No. I do not envision user guides being included in a release. They
never have been, and I think it would be impractical because they are
never completed in time for inclusion in a release.

And repeating from another note from me, just to keep the info together:

We would welcome participation by any and all members of AOOo, and
oversight and approval by the AOOo (P)PMC at any stage, as long as we
don't have to use SVN or other unfamiliar tools during the document
production process. We just want to continue using our own website and
production methods.

--Jean

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
It might help to be explicit about what you want to do with the user
guides.  Are you:

1) Looking to have a link from the Apache OOo web site to the user guides?

2) Having the publication form of the user guides hosted by the Apache
OOo website?

3) Periodically contributing the user guides to Apache OOo for
inclusion in a release?

-Rob


On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam,
>
> To make sure I understand your answer to Rob, could you please clarify
> for me:
>
> What about user-oriented documentation (user guides, tutorials, etc, as
> listed by Rob)?
>
> Or was that covered by your answer at the bottom of your note, about
> making a concrete proposal for presentation to legal-discuss? I couldn't
> tell if that applied only to things for inclusion in an official release
> (Rob's item 2), or if it applied also to things not included in a
> release but provided on the AOOo website or wiki (Rob's item 1).
>
> I am asking, of course, because the independent ODFAuthors group, which
> has been producing the OOo user guides, would like to continue doing do
> for AOOo, while remaining independent.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Jean
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:58 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) Are there any required license issues that we need to heed related
>> > to our website?  Assume for sake of argument that we're talking about
>> > web site content that never becomes part of a release.   So user
>> > guides, tutorials, as-is document templates that users could download,
>> > 3rd party plugins, additional 3rd party translation packs, user
>> > forums, etc.  Is there any requirement that these all be harmonized on
>> > Apache 2.0 and compatible licenses?  Or can we have a mix of licenses
>> > to that content, hosted by Apache in a sufficiently sand boxed
>> > environment?
>> >
>> > In other words, are the project's websites and all that we host at
>> > Apache required to be under an Apache-compatible license?  Or can we
>> > have copyleft "extras" that we host, with caveats, but do not build
>> > ourselves or include in our releases?
>>
>> We generally don't host third party plugins, be they copyleft,
>> proprietary, or even under the Apache License.  One place that such
>> could be placed is:
>>
>> http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/
>>
>> > 2) If an existing independent group wishes to remain independent, and
>> > develop documentation or translations, or other similar modules, and
>> > then contribute it to the Apache OpenOffice project for inclusion in
>> > an official release, can this be done?   Assume that the work is made
>> > available to us under a compatible license, so it is (in that sense)
>> > allowable in a release.
>> >
>> > Is there any mechanism for an Apache project to routinely accept and
>> > release such modules?  Or would this require an SGA/Incubation
>> > proposal each time?  Or is there any streamlined way of doing this?
>>
>> If there is an acceptable concrete proposal on how to deal with this
>> was presented to legal-discuss what the likely outcome of that
>> discussion would be is a narrowly crafted exception allowing this.
>>
>> I do not see cc-by as a likely red flag.
>>
>> I would like to see some evidence that project members are able to participate.
>>
>> I would also like to see some evidence that project members endorse this.
>>
>> Certainly, other topics may come up in the discussion, but those would
>> be areas I would seek to provide concrete answers to before posting to
>> legal-discuss.
>>
>> > I'm not arguing that #1 or #2 is a good idea or not.  But some
>> > conversations seem to be leading to these directions, so I think it is
>> > worth clarifying exactly what is allowed.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > -Rob
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 09:05 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> Sam,
> 
> To make sure I understand your answer to Rob, could you please clarify
> for me:
> 
> What about user-oriented documentation (user guides, tutorials, etc, as
> listed by Rob)? 
> 
> Or was that covered by your answer at the bottom of your note, about
> making a concrete proposal for presentation to legal-discuss? I couldn't
> tell if that applied only to things for inclusion in an official release
> (Rob's item 2), or if it applied also to things not included in a
> release but provided on the AOOo website or wiki (Rob's item 1).
> 
> I am asking, of course, because the independent ODFAuthors group, which
> has been producing the OOo user guides, would like to continue doing do
> for AOOo, while remaining independent. 


And to clarify what I mean by "independent": I mean using our own
website and production methods. We would welcome participation by any
and all members of AOOo, and oversight and approval by the AOOo (P)PMC
at any stage, as long as we don't have to use SVN or other unfamiliar
tools during the document production process.

--Jean

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for jumping in but it seems there is an missunderstading between Rob
>> and the ODFAuthor project. I think the ODFAuthor was in the position of many
>> quasi-independent groups like the OOo NGOs and others.
>>
> 
> It is possible that I an confused, but I think I am mainly concerned
> about fragmenting the project into many "quasi-independent" groups.
> I'm not absolutist in this, but I can see clear risks.
> 
> Let me give you an extreme example.  Suppose we decided to stop
> writing word processor text alignment code,  Instead we relied on
> group A, which owned and developed left alignment code, group B which
> did all the center alignment work and group C did the right alignment
> code.
> 
> (OK, the example is ridiculous technically, but bear with me please)
> 
> Because, in this fanciful example, the Apache project had other groups
> own essential portions of the project, this means that anyone who
> tries to put together an actual product based on Apache OOo would need
> to access the three alignment libraries produced by groups A, B and C.
>  This is true whether one was making an open source release, or a
> proprietary release.  Whoever tries to release a version of OOo
> binaries, if they wished to have a viable product (from a user
> perspective) would need to negotiate with groups A, B and C, in terms
> of functionality, schedule, support, localization support, etc., as
> well as license.
> 
> Compare that to a situation where the core alignment code is all in
> the Apache OpenOffice project, under the Apache 2.0 license.  That
> gives downstream users of our releases, open source and commercial,
> the maximum flexibility to repackage the release.  They can add code,
> subtract code, do whatever they want.  But we don't send them to track
> down dozens of 3rd party dependencies owned by other organizations.
> 
> Another example, with translations.  Suppose the translation files for
> OOo were owned by a bunch of different groups and were not part of the
> Apache project, under the Apache license.  Then, if someone wanted to
> take the AOOo sources and make a special version, say a Portable Apps
> version, or a special educational version, or whatever, then they
> would need to negotiate access with external groups for their
> translation files.
> 
> I think we need to be careful about this kind of fragmentation since
> they prevent downstream consumers of our releases from making
> effective use of our releases.  It hurts the downstream ecosystem.
> 
> I think we should have a clear idea of what the essential, core
> OpenOffice product is, and ensure that those parts of it are developed
> in the AOOo project, under the Apache 2.0 license, and under PMC
> oversight.
> 
> Of course, there may be parts that are not essential, core release
> components, and those could be done anywhere.  In fact, we should
> encourage extensions, additional documentation, plugins, etc., as part
> of the overall eco system.  That is a good thing.  But we need to have
> a clear idea of what the core is as well, and ensure that the core is
> developed in one place.
> 

So we start up a subproject to deal with user documentation and start
from scratch.  Trying to build up a group of people that have no
interest in learning a new, less efficient, process.  Or have infra
build a system that works for the contributors.

Andy

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Sam,
>>
>> To make sure I understand your answer to Rob, could you please clarify
>> for me:
>>
>> What about user-oriented documentation (user guides, tutorials, etc, as
>> listed by Rob)?
>>
>> Or was that covered by your answer at the bottom of your note, about
>> making a concrete proposal for presentation to legal-discuss? I couldn't
>> tell if that applied only to things for inclusion in an official release
>> (Rob's item 2), or if it applied also to things not included in a
>> release but provided on the AOOo website or wiki (Rob's item 1).
>>
>> I am asking, of course, because the independent ODFAuthors group, which
>> has been producing the OOo user guides, would like to continue doing do
>> for AOOo, while remaining independent.
>>
>
> Sorry for jumping in but it seems there is an missunderstading between Rob
> and the ODFAuthor project. I think the ODFAuthor was in the position of many
> quasi-independent groups like the OOo NGOs and others.
>

It is possible that I an confused, but I think I am mainly concerned
about fragmenting the project into many "quasi-independent" groups.
I'm not absolutist in this, but I can see clear risks.

Let me give you an extreme example.  Suppose we decided to stop
writing word processor text alignment code,  Instead we relied on
group A, which owned and developed left alignment code, group B which
did all the center alignment work and group C did the right alignment
code.

(OK, the example is ridiculous technically, but bear with me please)

Because, in this fanciful example, the Apache project had other groups
own essential portions of the project, this means that anyone who
tries to put together an actual product based on Apache OOo would need
to access the three alignment libraries produced by groups A, B and C.
 This is true whether one was making an open source release, or a
proprietary release.  Whoever tries to release a version of OOo
binaries, if they wished to have a viable product (from a user
perspective) would need to negotiate with groups A, B and C, in terms
of functionality, schedule, support, localization support, etc., as
well as license.

Compare that to a situation where the core alignment code is all in
the Apache OpenOffice project, under the Apache 2.0 license.  That
gives downstream users of our releases, open source and commercial,
the maximum flexibility to repackage the release.  They can add code,
subtract code, do whatever they want.  But we don't send them to track
down dozens of 3rd party dependencies owned by other organizations.

Another example, with translations.  Suppose the translation files for
OOo were owned by a bunch of different groups and were not part of the
Apache project, under the Apache license.  Then, if someone wanted to
take the AOOo sources and make a special version, say a Portable Apps
version, or a special educational version, or whatever, then they
would need to negotiate access with external groups for their
translation files.

I think we need to be careful about this kind of fragmentation since
they prevent downstream consumers of our releases from making
effective use of our releases.  It hurts the downstream ecosystem.

I think we should have a clear idea of what the essential, core
OpenOffice product is, and ensure that those parts of it are developed
in the AOOo project, under the Apache 2.0 license, and under PMC
oversight.

Of course, there may be parts that are not essential, core release
components, and those could be done anywhere.  In fact, we should
encourage extensions, additional documentation, plugins, etc., as part
of the overall eco system.  That is a good thing.  But we need to have
a clear idea of what the core is as well, and ensure that the core is
developed in one place.


> ODF provided a quasi official documentation effort. I say quasi, because it
> wasnt really integrated with the documentation.openoffice.org group. AFAIK
> there is no documentation.openoffice.org group anymore. At least I havent
> seen much people step in from that group. So the default fallback in the
> ODFAuthors.
>
> However there is the use of the name as independent source. I think that is
> on the clear, and was never an issue there. However the actual question is
> regarding if this will be a fully official effort or not, and if it is, then
> how can we make it possible. For example Apache have their own license for
> documentation, but ODFAuthors actually have a different goal with the docs
> than Apache.
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --Jean
>>
>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:58 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 1) Are there any required license issues that we need to heed related
>> > > to our website?  Assume for sake of argument that we're talking about
>> > > web site content that never becomes part of a release.   So user
>> > > guides, tutorials, as-is document templates that users could download,
>> > > 3rd party plugins, additional 3rd party translation packs, user
>> > > forums, etc.  Is there any requirement that these all be harmonized on
>> > > Apache 2.0 and compatible licenses?  Or can we have a mix of licenses
>> > > to that content, hosted by Apache in a sufficiently sand boxed
>> > > environment?
>> > >
>> > > In other words, are the project's websites and all that we host at
>> > > Apache required to be under an Apache-compatible license?  Or can we
>> > > have copyleft "extras" that we host, with caveats, but do not build
>> > > ourselves or include in our releases?
>> >
>> > We generally don't host third party plugins, be they copyleft,
>> > proprietary, or even under the Apache License.  One place that such
>> > could be placed is:
>> >
>> > http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/
>> >
>> > > 2) If an existing independent group wishes to remain independent, and
>> > > develop documentation or translations, or other similar modules, and
>> > > then contribute it to the Apache OpenOffice project for inclusion in
>> > > an official release, can this be done?   Assume that the work is made
>> > > available to us under a compatible license, so it is (in that sense)
>> > > allowable in a release.
>> > >
>> > > Is there any mechanism for an Apache project to routinely accept and
>> > > release such modules?  Or would this require an SGA/Incubation
>> > > proposal each time?  Or is there any streamlined way of doing this?
>> >
>> > If there is an acceptable concrete proposal on how to deal with this
>> > was presented to legal-discuss what the likely outcome of that
>> > discussion would be is a narrowly crafted exception allowing this.
>> >
>> > I do not see cc-by as a likely red flag.
>> >
>> > I would like to see some evidence that project members are able to
>> participate.
>> >
>> > I would also like to see some evidence that project members endorse this.
>> >
>> > Certainly, other topics may come up in the discussion, but those would
>> > be areas I would seek to provide concrete answers to before posting to
>> > legal-discuss.
>> >
>> > > I'm not arguing that #1 or #2 is a good idea or not.  But some
>> > > conversations seem to be leading to these directions, so I think it is
>> > > worth clarifying exactly what is allowed.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > >
>> > > -Rob
>> >
>> > - Sam Ruby
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
>

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Sam,
>
> To make sure I understand your answer to Rob, could you please clarify
> for me:
>
> What about user-oriented documentation (user guides, tutorials, etc, as
> listed by Rob)?
>
> Or was that covered by your answer at the bottom of your note, about
> making a concrete proposal for presentation to legal-discuss? I couldn't
> tell if that applied only to things for inclusion in an official release
> (Rob's item 2), or if it applied also to things not included in a
> release but provided on the AOOo website or wiki (Rob's item 1).
>
> I am asking, of course, because the independent ODFAuthors group, which
> has been producing the OOo user guides, would like to continue doing do
> for AOOo, while remaining independent.
>

Sorry for jumping in but it seems there is an missunderstading between Rob
and the ODFAuthor project. I think the ODFAuthor was in the position of many
quasi-independent groups like the OOo NGOs and others.

ODF provided a quasi official documentation effort. I say quasi, because it
wasnt really integrated with the documentation.openoffice.org group. AFAIK
there is no documentation.openoffice.org group anymore. At least I havent
seen much people step in from that group. So the default fallback in the
ODFAuthors.

However there is the use of the name as independent source. I think that is
on the clear, and was never an issue there. However the actual question is
regarding if this will be a fully official effort or not, and if it is, then
how can we make it possible. For example Apache have their own license for
documentation, but ODFAuthors actually have a different goal with the docs
than Apache.



>
> Thanks!
>
> --Jean
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:58 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 1) Are there any required license issues that we need to heed related
> > > to our website?  Assume for sake of argument that we're talking about
> > > web site content that never becomes part of a release.   So user
> > > guides, tutorials, as-is document templates that users could download,
> > > 3rd party plugins, additional 3rd party translation packs, user
> > > forums, etc.  Is there any requirement that these all be harmonized on
> > > Apache 2.0 and compatible licenses?  Or can we have a mix of licenses
> > > to that content, hosted by Apache in a sufficiently sand boxed
> > > environment?
> > >
> > > In other words, are the project's websites and all that we host at
> > > Apache required to be under an Apache-compatible license?  Or can we
> > > have copyleft "extras" that we host, with caveats, but do not build
> > > ourselves or include in our releases?
> >
> > We generally don't host third party plugins, be they copyleft,
> > proprietary, or even under the Apache License.  One place that such
> > could be placed is:
> >
> > http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/
> >
> > > 2) If an existing independent group wishes to remain independent, and
> > > develop documentation or translations, or other similar modules, and
> > > then contribute it to the Apache OpenOffice project for inclusion in
> > > an official release, can this be done?   Assume that the work is made
> > > available to us under a compatible license, so it is (in that sense)
> > > allowable in a release.
> > >
> > > Is there any mechanism for an Apache project to routinely accept and
> > > release such modules?  Or would this require an SGA/Incubation
> > > proposal each time?  Or is there any streamlined way of doing this?
> >
> > If there is an acceptable concrete proposal on how to deal with this
> > was presented to legal-discuss what the likely outcome of that
> > discussion would be is a narrowly crafted exception allowing this.
> >
> > I do not see cc-by as a likely red flag.
> >
> > I would like to see some evidence that project members are able to
> participate.
> >
> > I would also like to see some evidence that project members endorse this.
> >
> > Certainly, other topics may come up in the discussion, but those would
> > be areas I would seek to provide concrete answers to before posting to
> > legal-discuss.
> >
> > > I'm not arguing that #1 or #2 is a good idea or not.  But some
> > > conversations seem to be leading to these directions, so I think it is
> > > worth clarifying exactly what is allowed.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > -Rob
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam,
>
> To make sure I understand your answer to Rob, could you please clarify
> for me:
>
> What about user-oriented documentation (user guides, tutorials, etc, as
> listed by Rob)?

I intentionally didn't answer that part of the question (at least in part 1).

> Or was that covered by your answer at the bottom of your note, about
> making a concrete proposal for presentation to legal-discuss? I couldn't
> tell if that applied only to things for inclusion in an official release
> (Rob's item 2), or if it applied also to things not included in a
> release but provided on the AOOo website or wiki (Rob's item 1).
>
> I am asking, of course, because the independent ODFAuthors group, which
> has been producing the OOo user guides, would like to continue doing do
> for AOOo, while remaining independent.

If the ODFAuthors group don't want this work included or even
referenced by AOOo, the only detail to be worked out is any trademark
issues, which I assume won't be insurmountable.

Inclusion or even endorsement will require coming to an agreement with
this group, which includes yourself and possibly (depending on what is
proposed) Legal Affairs.

> Thanks!
>
> --Jean

- Sam Ruby

> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:58 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) Are there any required license issues that we need to heed related
>> > to our website?  Assume for sake of argument that we're talking about
>> > web site content that never becomes part of a release.   So user
>> > guides, tutorials, as-is document templates that users could download,
>> > 3rd party plugins, additional 3rd party translation packs, user
>> > forums, etc.  Is there any requirement that these all be harmonized on
>> > Apache 2.0 and compatible licenses?  Or can we have a mix of licenses
>> > to that content, hosted by Apache in a sufficiently sand boxed
>> > environment?
>> >
>> > In other words, are the project's websites and all that we host at
>> > Apache required to be under an Apache-compatible license?  Or can we
>> > have copyleft "extras" that we host, with caveats, but do not build
>> > ourselves or include in our releases?
>>
>> We generally don't host third party plugins, be they copyleft,
>> proprietary, or even under the Apache License.  One place that such
>> could be placed is:
>>
>> http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/
>>
>> > 2) If an existing independent group wishes to remain independent, and
>> > develop documentation or translations, or other similar modules, and
>> > then contribute it to the Apache OpenOffice project for inclusion in
>> > an official release, can this be done?   Assume that the work is made
>> > available to us under a compatible license, so it is (in that sense)
>> > allowable in a release.
>> >
>> > Is there any mechanism for an Apache project to routinely accept and
>> > release such modules?  Or would this require an SGA/Incubation
>> > proposal each time?  Or is there any streamlined way of doing this?
>>
>> If there is an acceptable concrete proposal on how to deal with this
>> was presented to legal-discuss what the likely outcome of that
>> discussion would be is a narrowly crafted exception allowing this.
>>
>> I do not see cc-by as a likely red flag.
>>
>> I would like to see some evidence that project members are able to participate.
>>
>> I would also like to see some evidence that project members endorse this.
>>
>> Certainly, other topics may come up in the discussion, but those would
>> be areas I would seek to provide concrete answers to before posting to
>> legal-discuss.
>>
>> > I'm not arguing that #1 or #2 is a good idea or not.  But some
>> > conversations seem to be leading to these directions, so I think it is
>> > worth clarifying exactly what is allowed.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > -Rob
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
Sam,

To make sure I understand your answer to Rob, could you please clarify
for me:

What about user-oriented documentation (user guides, tutorials, etc, as
listed by Rob)? 

Or was that covered by your answer at the bottom of your note, about
making a concrete proposal for presentation to legal-discuss? I couldn't
tell if that applied only to things for inclusion in an official release
(Rob's item 2), or if it applied also to things not included in a
release but provided on the AOOo website or wiki (Rob's item 1).

I am asking, of course, because the independent ODFAuthors group, which
has been producing the OOo user guides, would like to continue doing do
for AOOo, while remaining independent. 

Thanks!

--Jean

On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:58 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: 
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> >
> > 1) Are there any required license issues that we need to heed related
> > to our website?  Assume for sake of argument that we're talking about
> > web site content that never becomes part of a release.   So user
> > guides, tutorials, as-is document templates that users could download,
> > 3rd party plugins, additional 3rd party translation packs, user
> > forums, etc.  Is there any requirement that these all be harmonized on
> > Apache 2.0 and compatible licenses?  Or can we have a mix of licenses
> > to that content, hosted by Apache in a sufficiently sand boxed
> > environment?
> >
> > In other words, are the project's websites and all that we host at
> > Apache required to be under an Apache-compatible license?  Or can we
> > have copyleft "extras" that we host, with caveats, but do not build
> > ourselves or include in our releases?
> 
> We generally don't host third party plugins, be they copyleft,
> proprietary, or even under the Apache License.  One place that such
> could be placed is:
> 
> http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/
> 
> > 2) If an existing independent group wishes to remain independent, and
> > develop documentation or translations, or other similar modules, and
> > then contribute it to the Apache OpenOffice project for inclusion in
> > an official release, can this be done?   Assume that the work is made
> > available to us under a compatible license, so it is (in that sense)
> > allowable in a release.
> >
> > Is there any mechanism for an Apache project to routinely accept and
> > release such modules?  Or would this require an SGA/Incubation
> > proposal each time?  Or is there any streamlined way of doing this?
> 
> If there is an acceptable concrete proposal on how to deal with this
> was presented to legal-discuss what the likely outcome of that
> discussion would be is a narrowly crafted exception allowing this.
> 
> I do not see cc-by as a likely red flag.
> 
> I would like to see some evidence that project members are able to participate.
> 
> I would also like to see some evidence that project members endorse this.
> 
> Certainly, other topics may come up in the discussion, but those would
> be areas I would seek to provide concrete answers to before posting to
> legal-discuss.
> 
> > I'm not arguing that #1 or #2 is a good idea or not.  But some
> > conversations seem to be leading to these directions, so I think it is
> > worth clarifying exactly what is allowed.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Rob
> 
> - Sam Ruby

Re: Scope of Apache license: what needs to be covered?

Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> Let me state my assumptions, which might be incorrect, but I think it
> is worth being explicit, so my errors can be more easily corrected.
>
> Apache projects make releases.  These releases consist at least of
> tarballs containing source code. The contents of releases must be
> consist only of files under the Apache 2.0 license, or licenses which
> ASF has declared to be compatible with it.  This includes not only
> source code files, but also any bundled documentation.
>
> To ensure that the releases remain compatible with Apache 2.0, the
> repositories that are used to feed into the releases are also
> controlled.  So SVN can only be written by those who have signed the
> ICLA.  A wiki used for bundled product documentation is restricted to
> committers as well.  Presumably, to the extent we include translation
> files in our releases, these would need a similar level of attention,
> in terms of license and access control.
>
> Am I anywhere close in the above?
>
> If so, that leads me to two questions:
>
> 1) Are there any required license issues that we need to heed related
> to our website?  Assume for sake of argument that we're talking about
> web site content that never becomes part of a release.   So user
> guides, tutorials, as-is document templates that users could download,
> 3rd party plugins, additional 3rd party translation packs, user
> forums, etc.  Is there any requirement that these all be harmonized on
> Apache 2.0 and compatible licenses?  Or can we have a mix of licenses
> to that content, hosted by Apache in a sufficiently sand boxed
> environment?
>
> In other words, are the project's websites and all that we host at
> Apache required to be under an Apache-compatible license?  Or can we
> have copyleft "extras" that we host, with caveats, but do not build
> ourselves or include in our releases?

We generally don't host third party plugins, be they copyleft,
proprietary, or even under the Apache License.  One place that such
could be placed is:

http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/

> 2) If an existing independent group wishes to remain independent, and
> develop documentation or translations, or other similar modules, and
> then contribute it to the Apache OpenOffice project for inclusion in
> an official release, can this be done?   Assume that the work is made
> available to us under a compatible license, so it is (in that sense)
> allowable in a release.
>
> Is there any mechanism for an Apache project to routinely accept and
> release such modules?  Or would this require an SGA/Incubation
> proposal each time?  Or is there any streamlined way of doing this?

If there is an acceptable concrete proposal on how to deal with this
was presented to legal-discuss what the likely outcome of that
discussion would be is a narrowly crafted exception allowing this.

I do not see cc-by as a likely red flag.

I would like to see some evidence that project members are able to participate.

I would also like to see some evidence that project members endorse this.

Certainly, other topics may come up in the discussion, but those would
be areas I would seek to provide concrete answers to before posting to
legal-discuss.

> I'm not arguing that #1 or #2 is a good idea or not.  But some
> conversations seem to be leading to these directions, so I think it is
> worth clarifying exactly what is allowed.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Rob

- Sam Ruby