On Apr 6, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Lily; >> >> --- Gio 5/4/12, xia zhao <lilyzh...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >> ... >> >>> Data: Giovedì 5 Aprile 2012, 22:03 >>> Hi all, >>> >>> On the lincese page, http://www.openoffice.org/license.html. It still >>> saying "developers could use the Creative Commons >>> Attribution License >>> ("Attribution-NoDerivs >>> 2.5"<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/>). >>> SUN/Oracle only accepted work under this license that was >>> non-editable and >>> for which there was no editable version that could be >>> contributed to the >>> project.". >>> >> >> If you notice carefully, the phrase is in past tense and >> applies only to legacy releases. >> >>> Who can help modify this page? >>> >> >> I think a review to the whole page is desirable for >> the new release. Any committer can change it using >> the Apache CMS bookmarklet or SVN. The big question >> is what to write in there. >> > > Is there a reason why the page should mix together copyright > statements on the website as well as license statements on the > releases? Especially since this link appears on every page, it is > confusing.
Yes, we are still distributing the legacy code. > > If it were up to me I'd have the site copyright statement only here, > and put the release license link on the download pages only. The download page links to the license page. Maybe we need two license pages. Regards, Dave > > -Rob > >> Cheers, >> >> Pedro. >>
