On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > Rob, > > I am not going to discuss increasingly-hypothetical cases when there is a > specific situation in hand. It is my understanding from the Apache pages on > the topic that Copyright notices are not removed nor are they added to > third-party material. >
You miss the point. Nothing in the iCLA nor in the ALv2 assigns copyright to Apache. So from the perspective of copyright, every member-contributed page at Apache is 3rd party content. Every. Single. Page. We have permission only through the license. So my example is not hypothetical. It is ubiquitous. > Furthermore, even when there is an open-source license (that's not exactly > what the current terms of use say), that does not mean Apache practice > provides for direct appropriation of the pages and removal of previous terms. > What terms have been removed? For example, here is the Arabic home page in the OpenOffice repository: http://openoffice.org/projects/ar/sources/webcontent/content/index.html?rev=1 Note that there are no notices or copyright statement on that page. Now look at the version checked into SVN: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/site/trunk/content/openofficeorg/ar/index.html I don't see a single notice that has been added or removed in the file. Do you? > Since there is no possible harm in *not* making such changes at this time, I > continue to recommend that such modifications cease and that specific > procedures for this specific web site and its content be worked-out/cleared > with Apache legal. > Maybe it would be faster to check SVN and satisfy yourself that we're not adding/removing notices? I don't think anything from Apache legal-discuss will overcome the underlying asymmetry in perceptions here. Of course, if you know of cases where notices are being removed, then I'd welcome specifics on that. If it were occurring then I agree it is something we should not be doing. -Rob > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:01 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in > /websites/production/openofficeorg: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >> I'm not sure. >> >> Absent specific details that say these pages are covered by the SGA, that is >> another reason to stop. >> > > Not really. This is mixing up copyright with license. Regardless of > copyright, these files are clearly under an open source license [1], > and that license gives us permission to copy, modify and post them. > If included in the SGA we would have additional permissions, like the > ability to modify but not share the source for modifications. But > that is not a right that we need, nor is it one that the podling will > ever exercise. Of course, if we want to include such materials in a > release, then we need to investigate this further, for the benefit of > downstream consumers. > >> And even then, the standard-form SGA is not a copyright transfer. It is >> only a license. There has been information already that no copyright >> transferred. >> >> Affixing an Apache copyright notice appears to be inappropriate in any case. >> > > But you could make that argument about almost any page at apache.org, > right? What is the basis for having an Apache copyright statement on > any page, unless it was written as a work-for-hire by Apache staff? > This isn't a specific issue concerning these specific pages or this > podling. > > By all means, satisfy your curiosity on the larger issue. I'd be > interested in the answer as well. I suspect that either every Apache > project as well as the ASF is in error on this point, or you and I are > in error. I'm not taking bets on the outcome ;-) > >> Affixing notices and licenses/terms has legal implications and that does not >> seem appropriate for CTR actions. >> > > I think we're just injecting the site notice onto every page that is > served up by the podling. My reading is that this is required by the > site branding policy [2] > > I hope we're not sticking an Apache copyright statement into every > HTML source file. That would be questionably on technical grounds as > well. > > -Rob > > [1] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html > > >> - Dennis >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] >> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 09:27 >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org >> Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in >> /websites/production/openofficeorg: >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >>> I think it is inappropriate to make web visible duplicate and different >>> pages that are presently available via the OpenOffice.org. There is much >>> more to determine before the migration of the OpenOffice.org content and >>> services is staged. There is no worked-out consensus on how that will >>> progress through integration so that user-facing OpenOffice.org and project >>> facing openoffice.apache.org are separated appropriately, if at all. >>> >>> More important to me is that fact that those pages don't "belong" to us. >>> >> >> Are you sure? >> >> These are the static website pages per project: >> http://openoffice.org/projects/native-lang >> >> In order to check these in, the person who created these files would >> have needed to sign and return the OOo contributor agreement. So >> Oracle has the ability to set a ALv2 on these. >> >> I know this is not true in all cases for all content on the OOo >> website, especially wiki content. But don't you see how it is true in >> this specific case? >> >> Or am I missing something? >> >> -Rob >> >> > >
