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 <[email protected]> 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
