On Apr 6, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > That is not a very good reason, IMHO. I think we should put the > legacy license prominent on the legacy download page. But I don't see > why it should be in the footer of *every* openoffice.org web page. > >>> >>> 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. >> > > At least three, I think: > > 1) legacy LPGL for where we offer downloads of the legacy release > > 2) ALv2 for where we offer downloads of the new Apache releases > > 3) A site copyright/license page on all pages, explaining the > copyright on the website contents itself. > > But I think it makes zero sense to have page that are not dealing with > releases at all have a link that talks confusingly about the license > on "releases". Remember, through the magic of Google, a user could > end up entering any random page on the website, to find the answer to > their questions.
+1. Make links in the appropriate places. (1) is linked from downloads. (2) is linked from where? (3) is linked from template/footer.html - The site license should have the current /license.html url. - Split the current page in two new pages - legacy_license.html and package_license.html - Edit license.html into the site license file. Go ahead and make it so. Regards, Dave > > -Rob > >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> >> >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Pedro. >>>> >>
