On Sep 10, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Hi Dennis, >> >> I am under impression that the license for everything on OOo is PDL, yet >> almost nothing fulfills the terms. >> >> Copyrights are with the Initial Writer. If I can find an Initial Writer I >> will mark it - pretty much only in <META> tags although that is whose OOo >> back in 2000/2002 created or changed the page or some lists in some places. >> >> As far as copyright where there is no identified Initial Writer should we: >> >> (1) Have no copyright. >> (2) Put the ASF copyright in place. >> (3) Put an Oracle copyright on it. >> (4) Put an OpenOffice.org copyright on it. >> >> We can't do (3) we're not Oracle. We should stop doing (2). >> >> Unless there is an argument in one direction or another I'll do (1) by Lazy >> Consensus. >> >> I recommend that as we replace pages with AOOo policies that we create >> mdtext replacements as fresh files. >> >> On Sep 7, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> >>> Dave, >>> >>> It would seem that these (few, I believe we're told) can be handled the >> same as unclear provenance anywhere in the code base and its dependencies. >>> >>> The ideal time to clean these up would be when the site is under the >> OpenOffice.org domain name but actually hosted on Apache infrastructure. >> That gives complete ability to make all of the adjustments that are needed, >> including the numerous minor ones to connect to the Bugzilla, etc. >>> >>> I'm not clear how migration of the wiki is impacted, unless you mean the >> proposed movement of material now on static web pages into the wiki? >> >> That is my concern. Kay will need to assure that we know which wiki pages >> came in as "PDL" as I think they'll need to stay that way. >> > > uh...well I am not sure AT ALL how to determine this esp the pages that are > not English. Oh joy -- I'm not a good legal eagle. :(
I think we will need to count on NL teams to do IP clearance in their own language and either update, delete or move to the wiki. At least the DE site is behind in several areas - especially licensing. > > Somehow I have a feeling that when OpenOffice.org spec'd the PDL, we/they > were just trying to use something convenient that was available in the > public domain. I now believe that most of the site is licensed via OCA and/or Terms of Use. We'll need to point to sign contributors and mention a some parts are copyright .... Oracle and a long list of people. We can then get legal-discuss@a.o to review. > > Anyway, I'll take a look at the NL sites in the next day or so and see what > I can determine. Sure, I think that we should proceed with converting everything we can from the OOo website to our incubator site. Whatever you move to the wiki can be removed or left as a simple stump that might be able to provide some way to preserve links into the project. I'll adjust the wrapping so that we aren't asserting a wrong copyright and provide a better license link. This will take more work with the Apache CMS. When the time comes to standup an Apache hosted openoffice.org we show what we have, and keep on changing and updating. To me the only prerequisites to Apache hosting are: (1) align OOo site policies with the AOOo project - clearance from the podling PPMC and Mentors. (2) have appropriate license and copyright notices. - clearance from the apache legal. (3) have appropriate branding. - clearance from trademarks. What do you think? Regards, Dave > > >> >>> >>> Exactly where are you finding these PDL license notices? The first one I >> found was on the "Open Office.org 3 Installation Guide", a PDF (or ODT) >> reachable from <http://download.openoffice.org/common/instructions.html>. >> If we *don't touch it* can't it be retained until a permissively-licenses >> alternative is needed? I don't see a reason to be concerned that the >> authors/contributors did not properly execute the instructions of the >> license they have offered. >> >> That's not the concern, the concern is if StarOffice, Sun, and/or Oracle >> lost the paperwork. I suppose should we be presented with a copy of the PDL >> from an Initial Writer then we fix the issue. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >>> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> RELAXED RETAIN, SUPPLEMENT, AND REPLACE SCENARIO >>> >>> If the notices are always in standalone documents such as the >> Installation Guide, I don't see any problem making them available the same >> way they are now. They should simply be left intact. They can be replaced >> by non-derivative replacements later, when there are Apache OOo releases >> that require different information. I don't see why we have to hurry. >> Instructions for existing releases remain valuable to keep around. I >> suggest preserving them right where they are, where people expect to find >> them. >>> >>> When there are releases from Apache OOo, supplementary documents could be >> offered. That would be another way to provide specific information >> applicable to later releases. I see considerable time before these >> PDL-licensed documents need to be supplanted. They might be retained for a >> very long time. >>> >>> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 14:33 >>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Concerns about all PDL website material >>> >>> >>> On Sep 7, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> >> wrote: >>>>> I am stuck on a licensing issue with the OpenOffice.org website and I >> begin to doubt if can do much with it other than rehost and correct obvious >> changes in policy. >>>>> >>>>> Please look at http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html >>>>> >>>>> (Whether the PDL is category A for Apache is a follow up, but there is >> no point without resolving the following.) >>>>> >>>>> Specifically look at: >>>>> >>>>>> Required Notices. >>>>>> You must duplicate the notice in the Appendix in each file of the >> Documentation. If it is not possible to put such notice in a particular >> Documentation file due to its structure, then You must include such notice >> in a location (such as a relevant directory) where a reader would be likely >> to look for such a notice, for example, via a hyperlink in each file of the >> Documentation that takes the reader to a page that describes the origin and >> ownership of the Documentation. If You created one or more Modification(s) >> You may add your name as a Contributor to the notice described in the >> Appendix. >>>>>> You must also duplicate this License in any Documentation file (or >> with a hyperlink in each file of the Documentation) where You describe >> recipients' rights or ownership rights. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>> Appendix >>>>>> Public Documentation License Notice >>>>>> The contents of this Documentation are subject to the Public >> Documentation License Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may only use this >> Documentation if you comply with the terms of this License. A copy of the >> License is available at __________________[Insert hyperlink]. >>>>>> The Original Documentation is _________________. The Initial Writer of >> the Original Documentation is ___________ Copyright (C)_________[Insert >> year(s)]. All Rights Reserved. (Initial Writer >> contact(s):________________[Insert hyperlink/alias]). >>>>>> Contributor(s): ______________________________________. >>>>>> Portions created by ______ are Copyright (C)_________[Insert year(s)]. >> All Rights Reserved. (Contributor contact(s):________________[Insert >> hyperlink/alias]). >>>>>> NOTE: The text of this Appendix may differ slightly from the text of >> the notices in the files of the Original Documentation. You should use the >> text of this Appendixrather than the text found in the Original >> Documentation for Your Modifications. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Does it ever actually require that someone fill in the blanks in the >>>> Appendix? I see that it requires one to duplicate the notice in the >>>> appendix. And it permits (but does not require) initial writers and >>>> contributors to add their names to the Appendix. >>> >>> If no one seems to ever provide this information then what can we assume? >> If there is no Initial Writer then who holds the copyright? Where's the >> paperwork? Where does that leave us? Square one on the website and anything >> derived from PDL? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>>> >>>>> I can find no answer to the question about who are the initial writers >> and further contributors are for all most all web pages. There are some that >> have meta tags, but that is not following the terms. >>>>> >>>>> Can anyone provide help here? Do most pages have an "INitial Writer" >> and "Contributor" of Oracle Corporation? >>>>> >>>>> Would we need to see if the archives from prior to the kenai migration >> have enough history to determine "Initial Writers" and "Contributors"? >>>>> >>>>> Where are these appendices? >>>>> >>>>> I don't see any point in working on the OOo website or transfers to >> MWiki or CWiki without clarification. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Dave >>> >> >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "There's something about the sound of a train > that's very romantic and nostalgic and hopeful." > -- Paul Simon
