I see that I should have read further in this thread before making my own reply to Tom.
Alex makes an important observation. Much of the content on the OpenOffice.org web properties are under default terms of use that provide broad reuse, including relicensing. Those terms are very much comparable to what is granted with an incoming Apache iCLA. In addition, there is content that has its own copyright and license notices. The ASF is very attuned to treating such material both respectfully and appropriately with respect to conditions of the licenses that have been offered. Furthermore, *even* if the license is compatible for inclusion in an ALv2-licensed project, it is a policy of the ASF to never include in its projects material that the license-granter does not want a project to have, even if the license allows it otherwise. That's the policy for third-party works of any origin. Such cases have arisen. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Alexander Thurgood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 07:41 To: [email protected] Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents Le 26/11/11 15:50, Tom Davies a écrit : Hi Tom, > > In our case the copyright holder is TDF. Well at the moment not TDF but the > German community (or is it French?) that is the legally registered > organisation that is looking after TDF assets until TDF is fully registered. > Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on which half of the glass you see as full ;-)), the copyright holder is each individual author, and not TDF (that is precisely why there is no copyright assignment in any part of the LibreOffice project. [ ... ] I have already stated on the Apache OOo list that I would not allow for the licences of any of my previous documentation contributions to be changed (since at one stage, some people were touting an "automatic, by default change" - fortunately, the Apache mentors of the project are crucially aware of doing this correctly when it comes to the legal issues). What the final result will be remains to be seen - I fear a severely trimmed OOo, but I am also assuming that the AOOo project will in due course fill those gaps. Of course, my position with regard to AL2 is my own, and each person in this documentation project must decide in their own hearts/minds, how they wish to act. I am not here to sway them in one way or another on that decision. I merely wanted to point out the oversimplification that Jean made with regard to the word "published". This oversimplification could lead people to make a decision with regard to the licensing of their works, without understanding all of the ramifications behind it. Now, please excuse my pedantry, and on with the debate !! Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
