On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> I've consolidated and summarized the various bits of guidance we've >> received on this list and on legal-discuss, and distill in down into >> relevant guidance for this project. We don't need to all be experts >> in this, but I think everyone contributing code needs to understand >> the basics of what we may and may not do. Since I know that not >> everyone has followed all the threads, I think it is worth bringing >> this information together in one place, for easy reference. >> >> Since this is my interpretation of Apache policy, or even my >> interpretation of someone else's interpretation, I'd ask you treat >> this as a draft for now. But please do review, ask questions, and >> point out any information that you believe is incorrect. >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP+Plan+for+Apache+OpenOffice > > Thanks. This is a good reference. > > Here's an area where we either already know the answer or need clarification. > > We've recently had the subject of language packs with various licenses and > copyrights including category X. If point 5 of Source Release: > >> 5. We may also have a build flag that permits the inclusion of weak >> copyleft, category-b licensed modules (e.g., MPL). When this flag is used, >> it could trigger the automated download of such modules. But this should >> require an explicit, informed choice from the user. They need to know that >> they are enabling the inclusion of non-Apache modules that have a different >> license. > > If this statement is rewritten for Binary releases to allow informed > installation of a Language Pack whatever it's host, license and copyright > might be - as long as on installation choices were clearly visible and the > user explicitly opts in or out. >
Good point. The parallelism here had not struck me before. I just added it as a #3 under binary releases. I think, aside from any license considerations, we should not be automatically downloading anything without the user's consent. > This same IP framework could be used for Extensions and Templates - an area > in total limbo with no volunteers active. > > These three areas are important to users and users would benefit if the whole > "ecosystem" co-operated. > > Regards, > Dave > > >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob > >
