2012/4/6 Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> > > On Apr 6, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> > wrote: > >> > >> On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Lily; > >>>> > >>>> --- Gio 5/4/12, xia zhao <lilyzh...@gmail.com> 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. > > +1. > > Make links in the appropriate places. > > (1) is linked from downloads. > (2) is linked from where? > (3) is linked from template/footer.html - The site license should have the > current /license.html url. > > - Split the current page in two new pages - legacy_license.html and > package_license.html > - Edit license.html into the site license file. >
Yes, this is one good and easy way to resolve these kinds of license problems on pages. > > Go ahead and make it so. > > Regards, > Dave > > > > > -Rob > > > >> Regards, > >> Dave > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> -Rob > >>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Pedro. > >>>> > >> > >
