On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob, this is really simple. > > We have no rights other than what are conferred by the licenses and notices > on those works you wish to be able to include in distributions. > > Since you believe they don't permit what you want, we can't do what you want > with them. > > Deal with it.
This is not the style of interpersonal interaction I like seeing here. > Now, if you propose to keep those works off of the incubator web site because > they are toxic (let's suppose), then there is another reason for making sure > that http://openoffice.org stays up and alive so the materials can continue > to be found there until satisfactory alternatives appear, if ever. This question fundamentally is about what the ASF is all about. Truth be told, there are *lots* of wonderful licenses out there. We can't stop people from using them. Nor should we, as I said there are lots of wonderful licenses out there, each wonderful in their own precious and unique way. The ASF isn't about those other licenses. The ASF is about the Apache License. We've worked hard to establish uniform expectations across our set of products as to what you can and can not do with the releases that we produce. At the ASF we have zero problems with the idea that a project creates a vibrant eco-system which includes data contained elsewhere that may be of another license and quality. That can be a huge win for everybody. But as to the assets that are released and hosted by the ASF, we have high standards. We will make pragmatic exceptions, sometimes even on a case by case basis, based on specific circumstances. But meanwhile, don't assume that the fact that we previously didn't notice that this clause was in CC-By 2.0 that that means that CC-by 3.0 is OK. It might be that the way we decide to fix that bug is to remove CC-By 2.0 from the list. > - Dennis - Sam Ruby
