Drew, Sorry,
I was referring to a code sample with a copyright and GPL notice being accepted as a Forum contribution under the existing Oracle terms of use (which allow no such thing). The misunderstanding was that a contributor could choose any license. It was a misreading of the outgoing terms as applicable to incoming contributions. That's what I meant by toxic. Sorry for being vague about it. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: drew [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 18:31 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [forums] Two Branding / Migration Issues On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 18:20 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I have nothing new on this beyond the issue at > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104> > > and the related discussion at > > <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518> > > My views have not changed. :) > > The likely case is that the same terms-of-use statement that is now used for > the main www.openoffice.org properties would apply to the forums. This will > not handle the fact that the forums have code contributions under old > licenses and some are toxic. The forum admins seemed to be unclear about > that the one time it came up. > > Responses have generally been to avoid differentiating incoming and outgoing > terms, not provide a privacy statement, and require all contributions to be > under ALv2. Well, then for now I'd say take the link in the current footer at the forum and point it to: http://www.openoffice.org/license.html [ ... ] beyond that, I have a problem with calling anything on a public forum, such as this, toxic - no one _has_ to take anything from it (the site) for any purpose related to the normal functioning of the application. [ ... ]
