On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave, > > It would seem that these (few, I believe we're told) can be handled the same > as unclear provenance anywhere in the code base and its dependencies. >
I've heard in some other threads the thought that we shouldn't worry about such things now, that we'll just sort it out before we graduate, but it is safe to move anything/everything onto our servers, because we are only a podling. I think this is untrue, or at least only true in a limited way. IANAL, but I believe there are two things to consider: copyright and Apache policy. For the former, the question to ask is: what gives me permission to copy? At the source code level, since all the code part of the legacy OSS project and is all under OSS licenses, it is usually safe to move all that into the project. This is because we comply with all of the licenses. OSS licenses allow copying, right? They may have restrictions on publication of apps based on the source, but merely copying the source code is fine. Ditto for documentation, and anything else under an similar type of license that allows the material to be shared. As we know Apache policy brings additional requirements, and will require that we review the licenses to ensure they are compatible with Apache 2.0, for files that are part of the releases. This is required for a release and for graduating from the Incubator. So that is Apache policy, things that Apache requires beyond merely respecting copyright. But imagine we found -- hypothetically -- some material in the OOo project that was clearly proprietary (not open source), So, a file with commercial headers, a copy of a Microsoft Office ISO, or a file where someone has sent a note to the mailing list claiming ownership? I don't think we would/could/should just copy such material with the argument that we'd fix it later. This is not a question of Apache policy. This is a question of copyright law. Unless someone has given us permission to copy the material, either explicitly via a written license, or through implicit consent, I don't think we can or should copy it. We wouldn't have permission to copy it and review it later. Implicit consent should cover much of the user submitted material in forums, mailing list archives, even the wiki. If someone voluntarily contributed to a collaborative tool, then they implicitly gave consent for that material to be stored and displayed via that tool. Changing a host, but keeping the same function, purpose, context, and even URL, should also be fine. So we might be OK in the case Dave brings up. Someone uploaded the content. We might not know their name. But do we have any reason to believe that it was not that person's work? Yes, I know that is tenuous. But it is little different than believing that an anonymous poster to this list, the support forums or the wiki is not posting 3rd party text. We believe it unless we have some reason to not believe it. That is why I raised my concern on the forum contents yesterday. Drew dropped a big turd on our ability to claim implied consent when he sent the note claiming ownership of the forum contents. We can't pretend we didn't see the note. Without that implied consent I don't see how we can copy that content. That is not something we just clean up in incubation. It is not a question of Apache policy. It is a question of copyright. -Rob > The ideal time to clean these up would be when the site is under the > OpenOffice.org domain name but actually hosted on Apache infrastructure. > That gives complete ability to make all of the adjustments that are needed, > including the numerous minor ones to connect to the Bugzilla, etc. > > I'm not clear how migration of the wiki is impacted, unless you mean the > proposed movement of material now on static web pages into the wiki? > > Exactly where are you finding these PDL license notices? The first one I > found was on the "Open Office.org 3 Installation Guide", a PDF (or ODT) > reachable from <http://download.openoffice.org/common/instructions.html>. If > we *don't touch it* can't it be retained until a permissively-licenses > alternative is needed? I don't see a reason to be concerned that the > authors/contributors did not properly execute the instructions of the license > they have offered. > > - Dennis > > RELAXED RETAIN, SUPPLEMENT, AND REPLACE SCENARIO > > If the notices are always in standalone documents such as the Installation > Guide, I don't see any problem making them available the same way they are > now. They should simply be left intact. They can be replaced by > non-derivative replacements later, when there are Apache OOo releases that > require different information. I don't see why we have to hurry. > Instructions for existing releases remain valuable to keep around. I suggest > preserving them right where they are, where people expect to find them. > > When there are releases from Apache OOo, supplementary documents could be > offered. That would be another way to provide specific information > applicable to later releases. I see considerable time before these > PDL-licensed documents need to be supplanted. They might be retained for a > very long time. > > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 14:33 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Concerns about all PDL website material > > > On Sep 7, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I am stuck on a licensing issue with the OpenOffice.org website and I begin >>> to doubt if can do much with it other than rehost and correct obvious >>> changes in policy. >>> >>> Please look at http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html >>> >>> (Whether the PDL is category A for Apache is a follow up, but there is no >>> point without resolving the following.) >>> >>> Specifically look at: >>> >>>> Required Notices. >>>> You must duplicate the notice in the Appendix in each file of the >>>> Documentation. If it is not possible to put such notice in a particular >>>> Documentation file due to its structure, then You must include such notice >>>> in a location (such as a relevant directory) where a reader would be >>>> likely to look for such a notice, for example, via a hyperlink in each >>>> file of the Documentation that takes the reader to a page that describes >>>> the origin and ownership of the Documentation. If You created one or more >>>> Modification(s) You may add your name as a Contributor to the notice >>>> described in the Appendix. >>>> You must also duplicate this License in any Documentation file (or with a >>>> hyperlink in each file of the Documentation) where You describe >>>> recipients' rights or ownership rights. >>>> >>> >>> and >>> >>>> Appendix >>>> Public Documentation License Notice >>>> The contents of this Documentation are subject to the Public Documentation >>>> License Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may only use this Documentation >>>> if you comply with the terms of this License. A copy of the License is >>>> available at __________________[Insert hyperlink]. >>>> The Original Documentation is _________________. The Initial Writer of the >>>> Original Documentation is ___________ Copyright (C)_________[Insert >>>> year(s)]. All Rights Reserved. (Initial Writer >>>> contact(s):________________[Insert hyperlink/alias]). >>>> Contributor(s): ______________________________________. >>>> Portions created by ______ are Copyright (C)_________[Insert year(s)]. All >>>> Rights Reserved. (Contributor contact(s):________________[Insert >>>> hyperlink/alias]). >>>> NOTE: The text of this Appendix may differ slightly from the text of the >>>> notices in the files of the Original Documentation. You should use the >>>> text of this Appendixrather than the text found in the Original >>>> Documentation for Your Modifications. >>> >> >> Does it ever actually require that someone fill in the blanks in the >> Appendix? I see that it requires one to duplicate the notice in the >> appendix. And it permits (but does not require) initial writers and >> contributors to add their names to the Appendix. > > If no one seems to ever provide this information then what can we assume? If > there is no Initial Writer then who holds the copyright? Where's the > paperwork? Where does that leave us? Square one on the website and anything > derived from PDL? > > Regards, > Dave > >> >>> I can find no answer to the question about who are the initial writers and >>> further contributors are for all most all web pages. There are some that >>> have meta tags, but that is not following the terms. >>> >>> Can anyone provide help here? Do most pages have an "INitial Writer" and >>> "Contributor" of Oracle Corporation? >>> >>> Would we need to see if the archives from prior to the kenai migration have >>> enough history to determine "Initial Writers" and "Contributors"? >>> >>> Where are these appendices? >>> >>> I don't see any point in working on the OOo website or transfers to MWiki >>> or CWiki without clarification. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave > >
