FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0
========================================================================== Guide content for Writer (example) Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide directory ========================================================================== Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the content files in LibreOffice to confirm the license. Just FYI on the status of the help files. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Hamilton" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation I believe GPL is still category X. The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that is not OK generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.) The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned. If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Jean Weber <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly license." As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a) several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and (b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't have current contact info or they have died. The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of *either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not allowed, says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL." IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay. Jean --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
