I was more concerned by the statement just beneath the broad copyright notice:
"Sections or single pages of this wiki are covered by certain licenses. If a licence notice is displayed at a given wiki page, you may use the content of this page according to the license. In case you are contributing to such a page, your contribution is covered by this licensing terms." The Copyright notice itself lacks a certain precision, for that matter. Consider the discussion page and the question that seems to have been sitting unanswered since 2005: <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki_talk:Copyrights>. And some of the authors seem to have attached non-permissive licenses to their contribution. I just created an account on that Wiki and I didn't have to agree to anything so far. I'm also not able to even edit my own User page though, and I did confirm my e-mail. Interesting. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 14:39 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance Am 14.06.2011 23:31, schrieb Thorsten Behrens: > Frank Peters wrote: >>> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under >>> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an individual-page >>> basis. >> >> That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the >> wiki has traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle >> remedy this by (as copyright holder) relicensing the content >> under AL like done with the source? >> > Hi Frank, > > um, I think the point made here is that certain content is *not* > copyright-shared with Oracle, and thus cannot be (easily) > relicensed? The point was about licenses and not copyright. The mentioned wiki Copyright page says "Copyright 1999, 2010 by the contributing authors and Oracle and/or its affiliates." Frank
