On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Lily; >>> >>> --- Gio 5/4/12, xia zhao <[email protected]> ha scritto: >>> ... >>> >>>> Data: Giovedì 5 Aprile 2012, 22:03 >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> On the lincese page, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html. It still >>>> saying "developers could use the Creative Commons >>>> Attribution License >>>> ("Attribution-NoDerivs >>>> 2.5"<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/>). >>>> SUN/Oracle only accepted work under this license that was >>>> non-editable and >>>> for which there was no editable version that could be >>>> contributed to the >>>> project.". >>>> >>> >>> If you notice carefully, the phrase is in past tense and >>> applies only to legacy releases. >>> >>>> Who can help modify this page? >>>> >>> >>> I think a review to the whole page is desirable for >>> the new release. Any committer can change it using >>> the Apache CMS bookmarklet or SVN. The big question >>> is what to write in there. >>> >> >> Is there a reason why the page should mix together copyright >> statements on the website as well as license statements on the >> releases? Especially since this link appears on every page, it is >> confusing. > > Yes, we are still distributing the legacy code. >
That is not a very good reason, IMHO. I think we should put the legacy license prominent on the legacy download page. But I don't see why it should be in the footer of *every* openoffice.org web page. >> >> If it were up to me I'd have the site copyright statement only here, >> and put the release license link on the download pages only. > > The download page links to the license page. Maybe we need two license pages. > At least three, I think: 1) legacy LPGL for where we offer downloads of the legacy release 2) ALv2 for where we offer downloads of the new Apache releases 3) A site copyright/license page on all pages, explaining the copyright on the website contents itself. But I think it makes zero sense to have page that are not dealing with releases at all have a link that talks confusingly about the license on "releases". Remember, through the magic of Google, a user could end up entering any random page on the website, to find the answer to their questions. -Rob > Regards, > Dave > > > >> >> -Rob >> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Pedro. >>> >
