On 18 June 2011 19:49, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Project websites are a form of official documentation. > > We want, but do not require, website content to be Apache > licensed. We do however require that all website content > be backed by an iCLA. > > None of that has anything to do with typical communication > channels like public mailing lists and public forums. Noone > can possibily claim that their participation on either was based > on the premise that their posts would be kept off the web, unless > some idiotic ToS somehow made them think that. > > I prefer we simply respect that such postings remain > in posession of their respective authors, that our > license to said works is limited to performing the > basic essentials of maintaining their public availability, > and if we'd like to republish their words in a different context, > like on a project website or in end-user documentation, that we > simply ask for the necessary permission to do so by seeking an iCLA.
OK, Joe seems very confident in his position on this and my reading of the Terms on the user forums means we can proceed with under these conditions as long as the specifics of those terms are adhered to (which means firstly ensuring that any copyright headers placed by contributors are respected and secondly ensuring no content is under a different licence). That just leaves the technical issues and we have volunteers stepping up for that :-) Ross Ross > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Ross Gardler <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sat, June 18, 2011 2:35:29 PM >> Subject: Re: User facing web items >> >> On 18 June 2011 19:14, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Ah, we don't need a license on forum content in order >> > to host the forums at Apache. People who post to the forums >> > are implicitly granting the right of publication thru >> > the website, similar to people who post to the mailing >> > lists grant the right to republication in web archives. >> > It's part of the nature of the service, and doesn't need >> > to be spelled out in an agreement. >> >> Isn't that dependent on the terms of use of the specific site. >> >> Even if this is not the case I'm a little confused by this assertion. >> We don't allow projects to use, for example, an open wiki to produce >> an apache.org hosted website. They contributors to the site content >> must have signed a CLA. Am I reading too much into that rule and thus >> your statement below is actually the important factor? >> >> > The only concern would be if we were trying to take forum >> > content and redistribute it as OOo documentation. There >> > we'd need an explicit license from the copyright author >> > in the form of an ICLA. >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> >> From: drew <[email protected]> >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Sent: Sat, June 18, 2011 2:07:31 PM >> >> Subject: Re: User facing web items >> >> >> >> On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 10:48 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> > Hi Drew, >> >> > >> >> > Ross reminds me to be very careful about content licenses. >> >> > >> >> > Would you please confirm that the license for all contributions to the >> these >> >>Forums is here - http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use ? >> >> > >> >> > If not, then where? Thanks! >> >> > >> >> >> >> I think that is about as close to a formal license as we ever had - but >> >> I'll double check and let you know ASAP. >> >> >> >> //drew >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Ross Gardler <[email protected]> >> Programme Leader (Open Development) >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com >> > -- Ross Gardler <[email protected]> Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
