Um, yes, it definitely is the ASF that should be standing behind the ToU. They're the only legal entity.
Of CollabNet ToU, I know not. The terms.mdtext that Kay found are very much the ToU of the original openoffice.org site, with someone's tweaking. So Oracle used them. I think removing legalese is fine, until it become bad legalese. What more would you remove? - Dennis PS: I notice there needs to be some improvement in what the terms apply to. The found one did not mention forums. I think it should be about the openoffice.org domain and its subdomains. incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg is a different game. -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 17:44 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Terms of Service on Forums 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 [ ... ] >
