Should we maybe move that over to legal-discuss? Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I think that's reading too much into the Copyright Notice. > > The notice is not enough to determine what portions are under whose > copyright. It is *not* all under Oracle copyright. In fact, I suspect the > only part that is will be from Sun and Oracle employees (as work for hire) > and perhaps others who signed CLAs (although the terms don't require one for > the site, including the wiki). > > That formula notice is not enough for Oracle to act as the holder of > copyrights that were in no way transferred by the other contributors. (CLAs > are not required under the general site terms and definitely not for wiki > contributions.) > > Assuming that the terms can be held to apply to the wiki (there is no notice > on the wiki and no click-through with regard to the terms that I've seen), > all anyone can do (including you or I) is sublicense and that is not the same > thing. It is nice that the terms of use assert a default permissive license, > but that is difficult to apply to the wiki also because people are allowed to > (1) attach their own copyright notices and, as we have seen, (2) assert less > permissive licenses by signing up on that special list. > > Recall that, in the US and I assume elsewhere, copyright must be explicitly > transferred in writing except for the work-for-hire case. > > In short, the wiki is a mess. IMHO as we like to say. > > And, IANAL, but I would love to play one on television. > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Peters [mailto:frank.thomas.pet...@googlemail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 22:01 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: f...@openoffice.org > Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance > > > Agreed where Oracle has the exclusive copyright. My only concern is > > that those other-license pages might not be under Oracle copyright > > and we will need to find out. > > As I mentioned in the reply to Thorsten's mail, according to > the copyright page, Oracle co-owns the copyright to all wiki > content, unless you dispute the validity of that statement as such. > > > I don't know the state of affairs, and was only raising a caution flag > > And rightly so. > > > -- another matter to check into. > > Frank > > > - Dennis > > > > PS: I am working to break myself of the convenient but misleading > > term, "relicensing," since only the owner of the copyright can set > > license terms and offer multiple (non-exclusive) licenses. There is > > no downstream "relicensing." What happens is more nuanced and > > relicensing appears not to be an appropriate term. > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters > > [mailto:frank.thomas.pet...@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, > > 2011 13:09 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the > > project - wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance > > > > > >> What caught my eye was the statement that some material was under > >> special licensing and you'd have to notice that on an > >> individual-page basis. > > > > That is indeed the case and the licensing situation on the wiki has > > traditionally been awkward. But couldn't Oracle remedy this by (as > > copyright holder) relicensing the content under AL like done with the > > source? > > > > Frank > > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Stein > >> [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:51 To: > >> ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Wiki for the project - > >> wiki.services.openoffice.org provenance > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:37, Frank Peters > >> <frank.thomas.pet...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >>> Am 14.06.2011 18:05, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: > >>>> > >>>> There are two pages that caught my attention immediately on > >>>> visiting http://wiki.services.openoffice.org. > >>>> > >>>> There is this one: > >>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > >>>> > And that leads to this interesting one: > >>>> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Authors_licensing_declaration>. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > >>>> > None of those are what I would call permissive. > >>> > >>> The question is whether Oracle as copyright holder actually > >>> donates the contents of the wiki under ASL (or any document > >>> equivalent of it) as well. Same holds for the website content. > >> > >> There is an ASLv1.0 and ASLv1.1. There is an ALv2. > >> > >> The "S" was dropped in order to apply it to documentation :-) > >> > >> If Oracle owns the copyright to any or all of the wiki content, > >> then they can place it under our standard Software Grant, and we > >> can license as we choose (ALv2 or (say) one of the CC licenses). > >> > >> Cheers, -g > >> > > >
Cheers, -- Thorsten
pgpBnsrucc8h2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
