Hi TJ, Thanks for the observations about the web pages. I have little doubt about the way the static pages of the web were produced. For the record,
1. I am not confusing the wiki with the web. The pages I gave as examples were web pages, not wiki pages, and the terms of use are at the bottom of the published web pages. 2. I think "Apache pwns you!" is not something Apache aspires to nor would want the Apache OOo project to be evidence for, even in sarcasm. If the static web pages are somehow identified in the SGA, then that part is covered. Until that is certain, there is reason for caution. And regardless, how the pages are licensed (or not) and what the site terms of use are under Apache infrastructure remain matters that require legal review before going live from Apache. -----Original Message----- From: TJ Frazier [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 03:39 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PLEASE STOP " RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg: Hi, Dennis, On 9/12/2011 22:37, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [ ... ] Ah! I think the penny finally dropped. Are you confusing the wiki content with the web content? Admittedly, the ownership and license situation on the wiki is troublesome. With anyone able to sign up and start writing ... OTOH, the web pages are and always were under a CMS, with write-access limited to something very like "committers". Absent information to the contrary, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the authors were Sun/Oracle employees, doing their jobs. Hence, the only question for legal is whether that content was included in the SGA, which it should have been. Note that when Oracle took over, their legal staff had no problem with the re-branding (<sarcasm> "Oracle pwns you!" </sarcasm>) that Oracle did. In short, we do not have a problem here. -- /tj/
