On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 20:56 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: >> > Hello everyone, >> > >> > Clean slate - alright! >> > >> > How about we just start with something everyone agrees on. >> > >> >> Point of order. I've made a proposal, in this thread, just two days >> ago. it is a "clean slate", based on nothing before it. I've >> received only two substantive comments, from Wolf and Dennis. >> Everyone else seems to be running around, trying to understand why the >> ToU have not been updated yet. >> >> If you have some comments on my proposal I'd love to hear them. >> Ditto, if Dave or anyone else does. > > Howdy Rob, > > Ah ha - long story, short - I read your email from Tuesday and not the > one from Wed so..it seems we all agree that updating the text at > http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use is the better way to go. >
Actually, I have zero opinion on what the exact URL is. That is the least substantial of all decisions that need to be made. IMHO, we really need to start discussing the *contents* of the ToU. And in general, I'd recommend that we not spend time on things where there is already agreement. That does not move us forward. As far as I can tell, the two remaining areas of disagreement are: 1) What is the incoming license we require of contributions to user-editable services, like forums, wikis (CWiki and MWiki) and Bugzilla? 2) What can we say about the outgoing license on content on these services? Obviously this needs to harmonize with our answer to the above question, as well as with past incoming licenses on legacy contributions. For #1 I was arguing for a minimal license that merely allows us to host the content on our servers, but does not offer 3rd parties any reuse. Remember, we're talking about users posting bugs, asking questions on forums, etc. Requiring any greater license on these sites would be a huge inhibition for corporate employees to submit bug reports, ask questions on forums, etc. Or would be for any corporate employees who bothered to read the ToU's, since any greater terms would typically require management approval. So I don't think we should require opensource-style licenses from users merely interacting with the project at the support level. But maybe they cross a threshold when they start contributing to wikis. -Rob > and I'll pick it up in a reply to that (well Dennis' comments).. > > BTW - as for use of the wiki for shared editing, a TOU page on the wiki > was already setup for that, been there a good while and yes I also agree > it would of been better if you had updated that and pointed to it in > your email message. > > Best wishes, > > //drew > > > > >
