On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > [ODFAuthors subscriber hat on] > > My understanding of the current state of LEGAL-96, > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-96> is that a concrete case is > required. I don't see one here unless the Apache OpenOffice project proposes > to change the terms of use for the Wiki to say that all new contributions > must be under category-A licenses. >
Actually, so there is no uncertainty, that is exactly my proposal, that all new contributions to the wiki are under Apache 2.0 license. However, no objections to linking to non-ALv2 content hosted on other websites -Rob > If that is the offer (in which case CC-BY, but neither CC-BY-SA nor > CC-NC-anything, would be acceptable with care), the specific conditions that > will be satisfied along with use of CC-BY can be run by legal-discuss@ > apache.org by addition to LEGAL-96 or whatever. > > 1. One condition could be that the attribution requirement be detailed on > the inside cover along with the applicable notices (Copyright, CC-BY, etc.). > As is noticed in LEGAL-96, authors rarely satisfy that aspect of CC-xx. > [There should always be an unambiguous way to contact the authors -- > copyright holders -- because, as the CC-BY deed states, one can always > request a license under different terms.] > > 2. The second condition could be to usefully point out, in the inside cover > (or its equivalent) that there are additional requirements if the document > happened to be delivered by technological means that did not allow the > recipient to possess or modify a copy. (Essentially, such delivery must make > it known how to obtain a technology-unencumbered copy.) This is the only > edge case that concerns some. ASF wouldn't be doing that, but ASF wants > downstream consumers to know when there are special conditions and not assume > there are none. > > These conditions, by the way, are valuable to specify in any CC-xx document, > whether or not acceptable for posting on an ASF site or including in an ASF > release. [Note: An attribution requirement is very BSD-like and may or may > not make the same front matter acceptable in a high-church-copyleft regime, > even though the modern BSD itself is tolerated. However, editions prepared > for other communities don't have to be under the same license. Then > satisfying (1) is by a recommendation, not a license condition.] > > 3. Overnight, it occurred to me that now there is also a need for ODFAuthors > to ensure appropriate use of the ASF-owned trademarks, including the > OpenOffice.org name and the gull symbol. I doubt that there is an issue, but > the document will need to provide recognition that trademarked terms are > being used. (That inside-cover page is not full yet, but don't despair.) > This generally does not require special permission, although one could go > through the ceremony. It is important that there be only nominative use with > no confusion of the document as endorsed by or produced by the ASF. (I assume > ODFAuthors are completely happy to have that be clear.) See > <http://apache.org/foundation/marks/>. Note: The list of Apache Marks is > out-of-date. Have no doubt, the name OpenOffice.org and related symbols are > now Apache trademarks. > > - Dennis > [still auditioning to play a lawyer on cable] > > -----Original Message----- > From: odfauthors-discuss-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm....@lists.odfauthors.org > [mailto:odfauthors-discuss-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm....@lists.odfauthors.org] > On Behalf Of Rob Weir > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 05:41 > To: [email protected] > Cc: ODFAuthors; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [odfauthors-discuss] Chapter 1 of the Base Guide ready for > publication > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: >> 1. The wiki has moved under ASF hosting, of course. All of the previous >> content is still there. See, e.g., >> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters>. >> >> 2. At the bottom of that page, however, is the new Wiki:Copyright Links. It >> is to this page: >> <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights>. >> I am not sure how this works relative to pages that have an existing license >> statement for the page, but this seems to be relevant to your question: "In >> posting a new contribution, you are licensing that contribution under the >> Apache License, Version 2.0 (ALv2)." >> >> 3. I am cross-posting this message to ooo-dev, since that is apparently >> where this approach was arrived at. Perhaps there is an accommodation that >> allows Documentation | CC-BY License (not CC-BY-SA or CC-NC-SA) to still >> qualify. I would not assume that without obtaining some sort of explicit >> agreement. >> > > Maybe start by driving this JIRA issue to closure: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-96 > > There were some questions on whether we could stream CC-BY 3.0 as category-a. > > -Rob > > >> - Dennis >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: >> odfauthors-discuss-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm....@lists.odfauthors.org >> [mailto:odfauthors-discuss-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm....@lists.odfauthors.org] >> On Behalf Of Jean Weber >> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 22:12 >> To: ODFAuthors >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [odfauthors-discuss] Chapter 1 of the Base Guide ready for >> publication >> >> That's fabulous news, Dan, and it's an excellent start to the book. >> I'll have a quick flip through the chapter and then put it on the OOo >> wiki... though at this point I'm not sure what's going to happen with >> all the ODFAuthors items on the OOo wiki. I haven't been paying close >> enough attention to know whether a decision has been made about >> whether they can stay there in the Apache OOo incarnation of the wiki. >> Regardless of that detail -- the books will remain available, and the >> Base Guide will be available as it is published. >> >> Perhaps TJ or Dennis or someone more actively involved at AOOo knows... >> >> --Jean >> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:50, Dan Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Today, I have uploaded 0801BG33-IntroducingBase to the Publish >>> folder. It should be ready for publication and movement to the wiki. >>> Before doing so, I meticulously compared it with the latest version >>> written for LO. This includes pictures and wording. Paragraph styles >>> were checked for correctness. The section that applies only to OOo was >>> reviewed for possible errors. It only took me all day. >>> Chapter 1 should be complete for LO and OOo. Now to chapter 2. >>> >>> --Dan >> _______________________________________________ >> odfauthors-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.odfauthors.org/mailman/listinfo/odfauthors-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > odfauthors-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.odfauthors.org/mailman/listinfo/odfauthors-discuss >
