On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Rob's appraisal establishes pretty clearly that considerable > adaptation to individual cases must apply. There is material that is clearly > more technical, although I am not so clear that it has to be considered > release content. There is material that, whatever its technical nature, > appears not to be licensed under the Oracle grant, and other material that > might be. The separations might not be in the same places. > > I don't think there is any wholesale action that can be applied to subsuming > OpenOffice.org under Apache. >
It is much more than just 2 categories, official or unofficial doc. Looking around I see things like: a) Official doc (current) b) Official doc (obsolete) c) Doc in progress (active) d) Doc in progress (abandoned) e) Project planning docs f) Pages related directly to the development of the product, e.g., build instructions, architecture notes, coding standards, etc. g) Marketing and event related pages h) Pages related to the governance of the project, e.g., minutes from engineering steering committee meetings, etc. i) Biography/home pages for project volunteers j) And probably many other categories Some of this maps directly to what a typical Apache project does on its website. Some of it maps to what a typical Apache project would call documentation. I don't think that we can simply say, "If it is not official product doc in a release then it is appropriate to allow anyone to edit it anonymously under whatever license they want". The content on the wiki is not exclusively in the categories of official doc and community doc. It has a lot of other stuff as well. Remember, the wiki was not just where product documentation was developed. OpenOffice.org was both the public facing website as well as the project's working website. It was self-contained. 1) Migrate the wiki off of Oracle and on to Apache machines. But pending further consensus, keep it read-only except to committers. 2) At the same time, make the Oracle-hosted version be read-only. 3) Figure out the minimal number of changes necessary for the PPMC to have consensus that Oracle can shut down their server and switch the domain to point to the Apache version. This might include things like branding, license, policies, appointment/confirmation of admins/moderators, etc. 4) Prepare notification to community about the new website. 5) Go live, along with notification to community > - Dennis > > MORE ANALYSIS > > As well as I can tell, there is a Copyright notice on that page, but no > license: > <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Performance>. > > The notice is by the link to this page: > <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>. > > So, if this is not subject to the Oracle license grant, there's not a lot to > be done about this. > > This related page is even more intriguing: > <http://performance.openoffice.org/>. > > There, these terms of use are linked, and the grants in section 4 kick in: > <http://openoffice.org/terms_of_use>. > > So some of this might be covered by the Oracle license grant, and some of it > might not be. I think that, on an individual-case basis, that determination > governs our ability to (1) host on the OpenOffice.org site only versus (2) > moving to an Apache.org site and to make derivatives that are licensed > differently (with appropriate attribution, etc., of course) without further > permission being obtained. > Yes, it is a mess. We can't change the past. But we can improve the future if we require that new contributions are uniformly under Apache 2.0. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 14:47 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Access to wiki > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Kazunari Hirano <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Let's look at a few examples on the wiki: >>> >>> Page on performance tuning initiatives in OOo: >> >> Do you mean "http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Performance";? >> > > Yes, thanks. > >>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page >>> >>> The editors of this page are almost entirely Sun and RedFlag >>> employees. It directly concerns plans and approaches to modifying the >>> code. This isn't really doc at all. But I don't think it is >>> "community" either. Performance tuning is a core development >>> function. In every other Apache project information like this would >>> be part of the core project.apache.org website, where developers would >>> most likely look for it. >> >> Thanks, >> khirano >> -- >> Kazunari Hirano >> http://openoffice.exblog.jp/ >> Tohoku Japan needs your help. >> > >
