I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2, although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF. (Note that the grant to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2 says.)
My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my iCLA. Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more rights than that for any contribution I make. The current statement about treating materials not under the default license still applies and I suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration. The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"] On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > I prepared my response before I saw this one. > > There is still need to be careful around this: > > However, when we create new material, including enhancements > Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which > says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean > that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple > licenses. > > 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be > honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific > Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible. > > 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for > The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we > certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current > license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2 > can be introduced. > The ICLA says: "Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship, including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You as "Not a Contribution." So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is "documentation of", yes? -Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites > [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"] > > [ ... ] >>> > All those "portal" pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at >>> > the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under >>> > Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right >>> > >>> > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html >>> > >>> > PDL is a sort of "copyleft" license. >>> > > We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in > ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to > borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation > as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of > that can be treated as ALv2. > > > [ ... ] > > This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just > move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant, > why remove? > > The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have > greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than > we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all > hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on > the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard. > > However, when we create new material, including enhancements of > existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our > contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward > that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should > not be a problem. > > [ ... ] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
