Re: [native-lang] New License and Contributor Agreement
André Schnabel wrote: Hi, Louis Suarez-Potts schrieb: Late last year, there was a discussion about the implications of the ratification of GPLv3 or LGPLv3 for OpenOffice.org among the OpenOffice.org project leads. The leads were generally in favour of adopting the updated licenses. The outcome of this and other discussions is that Sun is changing the license for the OpenOffice.org codebase to the more flexible and protective LGPL v3 [0], effective with the beta of OpenOffice.org 3.0 which is due later this year. This change is supported by the OpenOffice.org Community Council. One legal question to the OOo addendum in the SCA. This addendum is (imo) very vague. It names that "source code extension to the OpenOffice.org project (or OpenOffice.org related documentation)" are covered by the addendum, but this does not really help with some things that I am currently working on. Eg. what is about a collection of templates or clipats (this is defnately no source code esxtension). Are these covered by the SCA now (or in other words do I need to ask people contributing templates to sign the SCA first ?) Another question - what about translation work? There was no clear answer until now and the new SCA does not give an answer. Do we need to sign the SCA for translation? (Means does everybody contributing to help/ui transaltion need to sign the SCA?) My notes from the audio (see below) state that anything which is shipped in the Community installation sets needs to be under the SCA and the LGPL. If it's delivered via another mechanism (e.g. the extensions repository) then it doesn't need the SCA - in fact it doesn't even need to be LGPL for the repository. Another question, concerning the Councils role in this case: if the change is supported by the Council, I'd expect there was a consensus vote. But why did the Council vote without a public notice what is going on? Following the Council Charta, a vote should be calle at least five days in advance - to allow the larger community the cance to comment. There may be a rush vote, but I see no reason for a rush vote in this case (the Council did not really vote on using SCA or not - the Council only "supports" this decision). Council members were invited by Louis to attend a "special conference call". Michael Bemmer told the attendees that Sun was planning to move to the new LGPL and the SCA. After a discussion he asked if everyone was OK with the proposal. Stefan followed this up with an email to see if everyone was happy with the phrase "this move is supported by the OpenOffice.org Community Council". As mentioned by Jan Holesovsky on the project leads list it would have been fair to give existing contributors the chance to comment. One of the points made on the audio was that this had been discussed extensively on project_leads last year (Charles' famous 'Stone in the lake' thread). John - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [native-lang] New License and Contributor Agreement
Hi, Louis Suarez-Potts schrieb: Late last year, there was a discussion about the implications of the ratification of GPLv3 or LGPLv3 for OpenOffice.org among the OpenOffice.org project leads. The leads were generally in favour of adopting the updated licenses. The outcome of this and other discussions is that Sun is changing the license for the OpenOffice.org codebase to the more flexible and protective LGPL v3 [0], effective with the beta of OpenOffice.org 3.0 which is due later this year. This change is supported by the OpenOffice.org Community Council. One legal question to the OOo addendum in the SCA. This addendum is (imo) very vague. It names that "source code extension to the OpenOffice.org project (or OpenOffice.org related documentation)" are covered by the addendum, but this does not really help with some things that I am currently working on. Eg. what is about a collection of templates or clipats (this is defnately no source code esxtension). Are these covered by the SCA now (or in other words do I need to ask people contributing templates to sign the SCA first ?) Another question - what about translation work? There was no clear answer until now and the new SCA does not give an answer. Do we need to sign the SCA for translation? (Means does everybody contributing to help/ui transaltion need to sign the SCA?) Another question, concerning the Councils role in this case: if the change is supported by the Council, I'd expect there was a consensus vote. But why did the Council vote without a public notice what is going on? Following the Council Charta, a vote should be calle at least five days in advance - to allow the larger community the cance to comment. There may be a rush vote, but I see no reason for a rush vote in this case (the Council did not really vote on using SCA or not - the Council only "supports" this decision). As mentioned by Jan Holesovsky on the project leads list it would have been fair to give existing contributors the chance to comment. André - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [native-lang] New License and Contributor Agreement
Le 7 mars 08 à 20:17, John McCreesh a écrit : On Fri, March 7, 2008 10:29, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: [snip] Thank you for these answers. Best, Charles. And the Community owes Charles a big vote of thanks for starting a long, long discussion about this on project_leads - remember "A stone in the lake: GPL v3 and OOo" Tue, 10 Jul 2007 ? Thank you John (blush) but fortunately for this project at least a dozen of people accepted to engage in this conversation and thanks to a special planetary alignment, the greatest part of the community and Sun were in agreement... Best, Charles. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [native-lang] New License and Contributor Agreement
On Fri, March 7, 2008 10:29, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: [snip] > Thank you for these answers. > > Best, > Charles. And the Community owes Charles a big vote of thanks for starting a long, long discussion about this on project_leads - remember "A stone in the lake: GPL v3 and OOo" Tue, 10 Jul 2007 ? John -- John McCreesh Marketing Project Lead OpenOffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [native-lang] New License and Contributor Agreement
Hello Sophie, Le 6 mars 08 à 20:27, sophie a écrit : Hi Charles, all Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello Louis, Le 6 mars 08 à 19:05, Louis Suarez-Potts a écrit : All, Some interesting news. Summary * The license for code is changing from the early LGPL v 2.1 to 3.0 effective the Beta of OpenOffice.org 3.0. (The actual date of this beta has not been finalized.) * The Joint Copyright Assignment form (JCA) is being replaced by the Sun Microsystems Inc. Contributor Agreement (SCA). This change is effective immediately with this announcement. These are excellent news. I have two questions that may interest the members of this list: - should we resubmit an SCA or the JCA with the addendum? No, if you have signed the JCA, there is no need to sign the SCA, it's only for new commers. - how does it affect our "local" documentation license (the Public Documentation License PDL)? All what doesn't go in the binaries of OOo doesn't required to sign the SCA. Some contribution guidelines will be available to further defines what SCA will not precise enough. But that means also that you can submit extensions without signing the SCA. Thank you for these answers. Best, Charles. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [native-lang] New License and Contributor Agreement
Hi Charles, all Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello Louis, Le 6 mars 08 à 19:05, Louis Suarez-Potts a écrit : All, Some interesting news. Summary * The license for code is changing from the early LGPL v 2.1 to 3.0 effective the Beta of OpenOffice.org 3.0. (The actual date of this beta has not been finalized.) * The Joint Copyright Assignment form (JCA) is being replaced by the Sun Microsystems Inc. Contributor Agreement (SCA). This change is effective immediately with this announcement. These are excellent news. I have two questions that may interest the members of this list: - should we resubmit an SCA or the JCA with the addendum? No, if you have signed the JCA, there is no need to sign the SCA, it's only for new commers. - how does it affect our "local" documentation license (the Public Documentation License PDL)? All what doesn't go in the binaries of OOo doesn't required to sign the SCA. Some contribution guidelines will be available to further defines what SCA will not precise enough. But that means also that you can submit extensions without signing the SCA. Kind regards Sophie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [native-lang] New License and Contributor Agreement
Hello Louis, Le 6 mars 08 à 19:05, Louis Suarez-Potts a écrit : All, Some interesting news. Summary * The license for code is changing from the early LGPL v 2.1 to 3.0 effective the Beta of OpenOffice.org 3.0. (The actual date of this beta has not been finalized.) * The Joint Copyright Assignment form (JCA) is being replaced by the Sun Microsystems Inc. Contributor Agreement (SCA). This change is effective immediately with this announcement. These are excellent news. I have two questions that may interest the members of this list: - should we resubmit an SCA or the JCA with the addendum? - how does it affect our "local" documentation license (the Public Documentation License PDL)? Thanks, Charles. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[native-lang] New License and Contributor Agreement
All, Some interesting news. Summary * The license for code is changing from the early LGPL v 2.1 to 3.0 effective the Beta of OpenOffice.org 3.0. (The actual date of this beta has not been finalized.) * The Joint Copyright Assignment form (JCA) is being replaced by the Sun Microsystems Inc. Contributor Agreement (SCA). This change is effective immediately with this announcement. Background == Late last year, there was a discussion about the implications of the ratification of GPLv3 or LGPLv3 for OpenOffice.org among the OpenOffice.org project leads. The leads were generally in favour of adopting the updated licenses. The outcome of this and other discussions is that Sun is changing the license for the OpenOffice.org codebase to the more flexible and protective LGPL v3 [0], effective with the beta of OpenOffice.org 3.0 which is due later this year. This change is supported by the OpenOffice.org Community Council. This move forward is the natural evolutionary step to take for a codebase using a license from the FSF license family. The drafting process for the license involved substantial FOSS community input and we will benefit from this work. In particular, the new license includes additional protections for the community against software patents. OpenOffice.org will continue using the LGPL so as to minimize the disruption to our community and expanding ecosystem, which evolved around the LGPL codebase. The LGPL grants flexibility to a broad range of users and developers, while still ensuring that modifications to the code are contributed back to the community. The new license is a major reason to exchange the Joint Copyright Assignment(JCA) with the Sun Contributor Agreement(SCA) [1]. For OpenOffice.org there will be an addendum, which accommodates developers of the core OOo codebase and of non-core extensions through different contribution models. It does not change the fact that contributions to the product packaged as OpenOffice.org require an SCA. The addendum enables OpenOffice.org to more easily host the source code of extensions, and thus promotes collaboration with other interested parties on the respective extension in a familiar environment. There is similar flexibility for documentation. The creation of the related contribution guidelines is in progress. A large number of GPL/LGPL projects have already moved to v3 [2]. For OpenOffice.org the next major release is the right time to change. Preparations will start immediately, so that we can publish OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta under LGPLv3. The SCA, including the OpenOffice.org addendum, will be published on the OpenOffice.org site together with a FAQ and a pointer to the Sun SCA FAQ [3]. It comes into effect with this announcement. See also our FAQ on licensing. [4]. A copy of this announcement can be found at http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/newlicense2008.html . Regards, Louis Suarez-Potts Community Manager OpenOffice.org Sun Microsystems, Inc. [0] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl.html [1] http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sca.pdf [2] http://gpl3.palamida.com:8080/index.jsp [3] http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/contributor_agreement.jsp [4] http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
