On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I have no idea why a page on the incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg structure > has terms that apply to the openoffice.org domain (and subdomains?). > > I also have no idea why that page has an HTML <head> comment that offers > itself under ALv2, in conflict with the terms it states. > > I have nothing further to add to this conversation.
Because it was a work in progress from an initial effort that you nixed for the reasons above. I stopped when you asserted the above. Sorry, I never deleted it. Regards, Dave > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 04:50 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am not the one to answer that question. >> >> It is a policy matter for the ASF and, I presume, a determination that also >> involves legal@ a.o. >> > > My point is that since other ASF and project sites do not have a ToU > statement on them, then it is not necessary to have one to conform to > ASF policies. > >> I don't have a ToU on my web sites, though many of the pages have Creative >> Commons 2.0 notices. I require commenters to be registered to comment on my >> blogs, but I don't know there is a ToU that goes with any of those, although >> there might have been when Google Blogger was the publishing service. >> >> But my needs (and responsibilities) are quite different than the those of >> the ASF in fulfilling its public-interest operation and how it respects the >> work of others. >> > > Again, we don't see ToU on ASF sites. > >> I think it matters that the great majority of content that is already there >> was already published under terms of use. There are legacy terms to deal >> with in now that material is dealt with and in how visitors can regard it >> without knowing when such material was contributed. >> > > Actually, the specific example Kay brought up was our incubator site > at http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg. None of that had legacy > terms. It is all new stuff. So why do we need ToU there? > >> I think it matters that there are requests for permission to reuse materials >> on the site and it is not clear what standing the PPMC has to approve (or >> decline) such requests. >> > > We *never* have standing to approve requests to reuse content. We > (the project) do not own content. In most cases neither does the ASF. > The most we can do is point users to an existing license. > > -Rob > > >> - Dennis >> >> PS: http://apache.org has a copyright notice, a license notice (and link), >> and trademark notice. There is no notice of any kind in the <head> element >> of the HTML. The situation with the openoffice.org domains and their content >> is not so simple. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 18:55 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums >> >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Um, yes, it definitely is the ASF that should be standing behind the ToU. >>> They're the only legal entity. >>> >>> Of CollabNet ToU, I know not. The terms.mdtext that Kay found are very >>> much the ToU of the original openoffice.org site, with someone's tweaking. >>> So Oracle used them. >>> >>> I think removing legalese is fine, until it become bad legalese. >>> >>> What more would you remove? >>> >> >> A thought experiment: what if we removed 100%? In other words, had >> no ToU on the website. Would anything bad happen? What would the >> risk be? I don't see a ToU on www.apache.org, or in a spot check of >> several high profile Apache projects. Do we have some special risk >> that they do not have that requires us to put additional legalese on >> every website page? Are they helping their users less than we are >> ours? How? >> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> PS: I notice there needs to be some improvement in what the terms apply to. >>> The found one did not mention forums. I think it should be about the >>> openoffice.org domain and its subdomains. >>> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg is a different game. >>> >> >> If we do decide to go with ToU, one option would be to have a set of >> "common terms" and then a list of additional terms which apply to only >> particular services. But personally, I'd toss it all out except >> necessary notices for things like privacy and trademark. We're not a >> multi-billion dollar corporation and we don't need to armor our >> website with legal terms like we are one. >> >> -Rob >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 17:44 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> @Kay >>>> >>>> Well, just to prove to myself that I can make use of the ASF CMS >>>> Bookmarklet, I edited the terms.html page. [I didn't trigger publication >>>> though, so you may have to find them in the staging place.] >>>> >>>> Here are the essential changes I made: >>>> >>>> I eliminated AOO-PPMC as the authority, since it isn't. I used the Apache >>>> Software Foundation as the HOST. >>>> >>> >>> If we think the ASF is the authority, then they should determine the >>> ToU, right? >>> >>> In any case, this looks like the old CollabNet ToU, doesn't it? It >>> looks like Dave checked in last August. It will fit our needs as much >>> as a stranger's shoes would fit me. >>> >>> In any case, my original suggestion still applies: Let's stop trying >>> to hack the legalese of existing ToU written by and for other >>> organizations, since none of are lawyers and we do not understand >>> fully how the parts fit together. Instead, let's state, in plain >>> English, what we want to cover in the ToU and then go to legal-discuss >>> for the wordsmithing. >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> [ ... ] >>>> >>> >> >
