On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <jeanwe...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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. > Sorry for jumping in but it seems there is an missunderstading between Rob and the ODFAuthor project. I think the ODFAuthor was in the position of many quasi-independent groups like the OOo NGOs and others. ODF provided a quasi official documentation effort. I say quasi, because it wasnt really integrated with the documentation.openoffice.org group. AFAIK there is no documentation.openoffice.org group anymore. At least I havent seen much people step in from that group. So the default fallback in the ODFAuthors. However there is the use of the name as independent source. I think that is on the clear, and was never an issue there. However the actual question is regarding if this will be a fully official effort or not, and if it is, then how can we make it possible. For example Apache have their own license for documentation, but ODFAuthors actually have a different goal with the docs than Apache. > > 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 <apa...@robweir.com> 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 > > > > > > -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org
