Agreed where Oracle has the exclusive copyright. My only concern is
that those other-license pages might not be under Oracle copyright
and we will need to find out.
As I mentioned in the reply to Thorsten's mail, according to
the copyright page, Oracle co-owns the copyright to all wiki
content, unless you dispute the validity of that statement as such.
I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution flag
And rightly so.
> -- another matter to check into.
Frank
- Dennis
PS: I am working to break myself of the convenient but misleading
term, "relicensing," since only the owner of the copyright can set
license terms and offer multiple (non-exclusive) licenses. There is
no downstream "relicensing." What happens is more nuanced and
relicensing appears not to be an appropriate term.
-----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 14,
2011 13:09 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Wiki for the
project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
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?
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To:
[email protected] Subject: Re: Wiki for the project -
wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on
visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org.
There is this one:
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>.
And that leads to this interesting one:
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>.
None of those are what I would call permissive.
The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually
donates the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document
equivalent of it) as well. Same holds for the website content.
There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2.
The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-)
If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content,
then they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we
can license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses).
Cheers, -g
