On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Then the disposition of LEGAL-96 is moot and there is no need to pay further > attention to it as far as documents from ODFAuthors go. >
I'd put it this way: As an Apache project the default is that all new contributions to the project are under ALv2. We don't need to discuss further if there is consensus on that default position. But if someone wants to push for another license being allowed for our documentation, then we would need to discuss that and likely also get the license classified via legal-discuss. Personally I think it will work well if we link to externally hosted doc created by ODFAuthors. They want to be autonomous, having their own website, their own license, their own mailing lists, etc., Hosting the doc is a logical consequence. I think this is a win-win. -Rob > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 09:39 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [odfauthors-discuss] Chapter 1 of the Base Guide ready for > publication > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <[email protected]> wrote: >> [ODFAuthors subscriber hat on] >> >> My understanding of the current state of LEGAL-96, >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-96> is that a concrete case is >> required. I don't see one here unless the Apache OpenOffice project >> proposes to change the terms of use for the Wiki to say that all new >> contributions must be under category-A licenses. >> > > Actually, so there is no uncertainty, that is exactly my proposal, > that all new contributions to the wiki are under Apache 2.0 license. > > However, no objections to linking to non-ALv2 content hosted on other websites > > -Rob > > [ ... ]
