On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > @Kay > > Well, just to prove to myself that I can make use of the ASF CMS Bookmarklet, > I edited the terms.html page. [I didn't trigger publication though, so you > may have to find them in the staging place.] > > Here are the essential changes I made: > > I eliminated AOO-PPMC as the authority, since it isn't. I used the Apache > Software Foundation as the HOST. >
If we think the ASF is the authority, then they should determine the ToU, right? In any case, this looks like the old CollabNet ToU, doesn't it? It looks like Dave checked in last August. It will fit our needs as much as a stranger's shoes would fit me. In any case, my original suggestion still applies: Let's stop trying to hack the legalese of existing ToU written by and for other organizations, since none of are lawyers and we do not understand fully how the parts fit together. Instead, let's state, in plain English, what we want to cover in the ToU and then go to legal-discuss for the wordsmithing. -Rob > I removed all mention to projects, private or not. There are none of those > any longer in terms of something someone can submit to under a different > license. That simplifies a lot. > > I played lawyer-without-a-license and removed all statements about "You > [hereby] agree ..." and "You acknowledge" and made the terms simply > declarative statements of fact that the user is asserted to be obligated to. > Since there is no action to have users read these terms and signify their > agreement, I assume that language is as vacant as notices in e-mail > signatures on posts to mailing lists that impose privacy and confidentiality > obligations on anonymous recipients. > > I did not tweak the notice in the MarkDown that ends up hidden in the page > headers and bluntly contradicts the terms themselves. I don't believe that > the notice has any value, being generally not visible to viewers of the page, > despite the fact that the HTML is the "source code" (but not in the sense of > the form in which the document is maintained!). Also, the invisible header > material declares that the terms.html page (and I suppose others) is > available under the Apache License Version 2.0. > > I think that ends my ASF CMS JFDI experimentation. > > - Dennis > > PS: It was very awkward and I had a number of problems using the CMS via the > bookmarklet and the edit page I then had to use. I went to my Working Copy > of > <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/site/trunk/content/openofficeorg/terms.mdtext > and found that it was much easier to edit it on my local machine. > Anyone know where JIRA issues on ASF CMS go? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 15:01 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums > > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > [ ... ] >> I just did a very quick draft mock-up of a new TOU at: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/*** >> DRAFT*+Terms+of+Use<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/*DRAFT*+Terms+of+Use> >> >> based on Dennis's original corrections at: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=118518<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518> >> >> IT still seems rather lengthy to me but... >> >> and it needs some additional information (ref URLs) and in what state is >> ASF "incorporated" or registered? >> >> I agree with Drew that perhaps we should mention the mailing lists in some >> way... >> >> >> >> I will work on this more tomorrow sometime and perhaps we can actually fix >> this. >> > > oh boy...well duh on me...when trying to track down where people should go > when they think their own copyright has been infringed upon, I came across > this... > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/terms.html > > already on the incubator web side. > > Is there any reason we just can't replace the current "Terms on Use" on > openoffice.org with a link to this? It looks pretty good to me. > > Again, no reference to mailing lists -- I'm assuming we only want to > highlight them with respect to validity of information? I don't see any > other reason to throw them in really. > > Anyway, having found this other link, I will delete my mockup on the wiki. > No use confusing things further. > > > [ ... ] >
