On Sep 12, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >> Rob, looking at the source on SVN doesn't matter. What matters is what is >> served up in a browser and what claims are made on the page that is served >> up. THAT AND ONLY THAT IS what I am talking about. It goes with being put >> into production web site, whatever the dynamic behavior is that goes with >> serving up the page. >> > > Could you tell us exactly what part of the footer you found > objectionable, so we can remove that portion and move on?
He's discussed this before. He doesn't like the apache license on the migration test pages for the html intended for openoffice.org. He doesn't like the Apache copyright on the bottom. We discussed making this proper last week. > > We shouldn't need to guess what you find objectionable. Please tell us. > > I assume we fix it here, in this file: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/site/trunk/templates/skeleton.html I've planned to change the way lib/view.pm and lib/path.pm work so that this is done properly. This will take a few hours which I will find in the next couple of days, at least this weekend. > > This is a 30 second fix. But you've turned this into a full-day > delay, but still haven't told us specifically what the issue is, so we > can fix it. It is actually not. Changing a file in lib or templates can make it tricky to cause the Apache CMS to build. I always do trial builds offline when I make these changes. No one besides Dennis has expressed a reservation about this, and, I'm told someone like Andrew Rist is going to have to review and confirm the proper copyrights and headers in the web material and along with the source code. As far as I know Kay and I are on the right track. Regards, Dave > >> I have a secondary concern about how a soft landing for OpenOffice.org is >> managed, but my fundamental concern on this thread has to with notices and >> licenses however they get there. And however they get there on >> OpenOffice.org, too. >> >> And why is it even necessary to go down all these alleys? >> >> - Dennis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] >> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 14:23 >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in >> /websites/production/openofficeorg: >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >>> Rob, >>> >>> Please look at >>> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg WACK de/, >>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg WACK ar/, >>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg WACK lt/, >>> >>> and so on. >>> >>> Also do a View Source and look at the comment injected into the <head> >>> elements. >>> >>> The proper comparison is with these pages, >>> >>> http://de.openoffice.org/ >>> http://ar.openoffice.org/ >>> http://lt.openoffice.org/ >>> >>> I think this is too far ahead of ourselves by any measure. >>> >> >> So I'm looking at: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/de/ >> >> I see no changes to the source. You can see the source file in our SVN >> here: >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/site/trunk/content/openofficeorg/de/index.html >> >> What you are seeing is the page after the CMS has munged it, adding a >> consistent title, logo and footer, like it does for every other file >> on our website: >> >> "Apache "OpenOffice.org" is an effort undergoing incubation at The >> Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator. >> Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further >> review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision >> making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other >> successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a >> reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does >> indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF. >> >> Copyright © 2011 The Apache Software Foundation Licensed under the >> Apache License, Version 2.0. Contact Us | Terms of Use >> Apache and the Apache feather logos are trademarks of The Apache >> Software Foundation. >> OpenOffice.org and the seagull logo are registered trademarks of The >> Apache Software Foundation. >> Other names appearing on the site may be trademarks of their respective >> owners." >> >> Do you find all of this objectionable, or only parts of it? Maybe >> we can just take out the objectionable parts of the footer pending >> your investigation, so we can move on with the other pages? >> >> But note that the exactly same footer appears on every page of our >> website [1], and much of it is dictated by branding policy [2]. >> >> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/ >> [2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html >> >> -Rob >> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 13:40 >>> 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 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >>
