Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
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 2.5http://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.
Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
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 2.5http://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. 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. -Rob Cheers, Pedro.
Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
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 2.5http://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. 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. Regards, Dave -Rob Cheers, Pedro.
Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
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 2.5http://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.
Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
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 2.5http://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. Go ahead and make it so. Regards, Dave -Rob Regards, Dave -Rob Cheers, Pedro.
Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
On 04/06/12 09:17, Rob Weir wrote: 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. I think we should discontinue the LGPL downloads as soon as there is the Apache Release. The archive will remain available but it should be clear that we will not support the legacy versions or the previous licensing schemes. If some hypothetical user reports a LGPL violation here were are not going to do anything about it, except to show them the way to the AL2 code and a give them a pat in the back. Pedro. Pedro.
Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
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 2.5http://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. Cheers, Pedro.
Re: Who can help modify the licese page?
2012/4/6 Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org 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 2.5http://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. Yes. I can review the whole pages but what to write here is one problem. Maybe here we can just replace Sun/Oracle using Apache? Rob or other project mentors, can you advise? Lily Cheers, Pedro.
