Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote: At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So here is one possible idea: 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is outdated 2- Create a new portal page on the old url with the characteristic described bellow This could work. But I'm tired of seeing Legacy notices everywhere. I'd prefer to call the legacy stuff Documentation-3 or something related to version 3. And new stuff should not be Documentation-AOO but simply Documentation. Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the wiki, it is the main subject of the wiki, so it is redundant to say in the title that wiki pages discuss Apache OpenOffice. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
2013/6/9 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote: At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So here is one possible idea: 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is outdated 2- Create a new portal page on the old url with the characteristic described bellow This could work. But I'm tired of seeing Legacy notices everywhere. I'd prefer to call the legacy stuff Documentation-3 or something related to version 3. Agree. Calling it Documentation-3 is perfect. And new stuff should not be Documentation-AOO but simply Documentation. Sure, that was the original idea. I just mentioned Documentation-AOO as a transitional page where we can work without hurry, and then move the pages to their right positions. From Tuesday I'll start to work on the Draw guide, someone that can help me with the portal page? I can do it myself, of course, but only on a couple of weeks. Regards Ricardo Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the wiki, it is the main subject of the wiki, so it is redundant to say in the title that wiki pages discuss Apache OpenOffice. Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
(top posting, because I'm not answering any particular post) At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So here is one possible idea: 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is outdated 2- Create a new portal page on the old url with the characteristic described bellow Characteristics for the new portal * Introduction to the project, how to contact the group and participate, pending tasks lists, etc. * Links to the new, Apache licensed documentation (user guide, building guide, etcetera) indicating that it's a work in progress and that new contributors are welcomed. * Add a section that points to the legacy page. Something like Apache OpenOffice inherited not only the code from former OpenOffice.org project, but also a huge amount of documentation. Some of those documents are still valid, some don't, but you can find all of them here. Once this new structure is in place for the main EN site, propagate it to other languages will be easier than fixing current PDL licensed pages. What do you think? (1) Maybe it's better to first create the new portal on /Documentation-AOO, when that new page is ready move /Documentation to /Documentation-Legacy, then move /Documentation-AOO to /Documentation Regards Ricardo 2013/6/5 Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2, although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF. (Note that the grant to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2 says.) My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my iCLA. Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more rights than that for any contribution I make. The current statement about treating materials not under the default license still applies and I suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration. The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap] On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: +1 I prepared my response before I saw this one. There is still need to be careful around this: However, when we create new material, including enhancements Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible. 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2 can be introduced. The ICLA says: Contribution shall mean any original work of authorship, including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the Work). For the purposes of this definition, submitted means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You as Not a Contribution. So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is documentation of, yes? -Rob -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
Hi 2013/6/3 RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com: 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote: Do we want to clone, for example, the documentation section on all the localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with sub sites (portals) like http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentationhttp://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentationhttp://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentationhttp://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation etc looking almost the same on all languages. Ricardo, we can go by two ways, based in commom practice for mediawiki: http://wiki.../Documentation and http://wiki.../Documentation/lang - for localized pages from the core http://wiki.../LANG/anything - for local/native texts. This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Testhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test added by Claudio a few months ago. See http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Langhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case. The *Template:* technology is for many other things, like menus, sorts, and others. I think that we can use this first step based in review the core and a way to translate it for other languages. How our system is a mediawiki, i did a research about localization in this software with the last methods, where i found some interesting contents. I believe that with translate extension for mediawiki we have the tool for this goal. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Making_Multilingual_Wikis_a_Reality_-_Niklas_Laxstr%C3%B6m_and_Claus_Christensen.ogv http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWiki As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a Master copy in English and then translate it in the various languages as volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to reflect the changes too. If i understood right, the translate extension will help us in this task. All those portal pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html PDL is a sort of copyleft license. This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about (more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license) Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective, does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation between new material (under Apache) and legacy content? Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF. My 2¢ Claudio - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 5 June 2013 16:36, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi 2013/6/3 RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com: 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote: Do we want to clone, for example, the documentation section on all the localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with sub sites (portals) like http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentation http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentation http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentation http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation etc looking almost the same on all languages. Ricardo, we can go by two ways, based in commom practice for mediawiki: http://wiki.../Documentation and http://wiki.../Documentation/lang - for localized pages from the core http://wiki.../LANG/anything - for local/native texts. This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Test http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test added by Claudio a few months ago. See http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Lang http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case. The *Template:* technology is for many other things, like menus, sorts, and others. I think that we can use this first step based in review the core and a way to translate it for other languages. How our system is a mediawiki, i did a research about localization in this software with the last methods, where i found some interesting contents. I believe that with translate extension for mediawiki we have the tool for this goal. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Making_Multilingual_Wikis_a_Reality_-_Niklas_Laxstr%C3%B6m_and_Claus_Christensen.ogv http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Translate http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWikie I checked the extension, it is possible to install it on our mwiki. As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a Master copy in English and then translate it in the various languages as volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to reflect the changes too. If i understood right, the translate extension will help us in this task. All those portal pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html PDL is a sort of copyleft license. We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of that can be treated as ALv2. This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about (more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license) I have seen similar things happen in other wikis. The way forward seems to be 1) announce the intention of changing license. 2) request contributors who do not agree, to remove their pages (we have mail adresses on the users) 3) give contributors time to do it. 4) change license. This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant, why remove? The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard. However, when we create new material, including enhancements of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should not be a problem. We should put the license in as part of create user, as an do you accept, thereby we only have a problem with existing users. This would be nice. Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A potential contributor
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
@JanI, Uh oh. If you don't have explicit agreement from the contributor(s) to a page concerning it being offered under a different license, either leave the existing license or remove the content. Those are the only legally-sanitary options for works still under copyright. Declaring a work still in copyright to be orphaned does not give you permission to republish it with a different license. Copyright doesn't work that way, not merely in the US. Secondly, the web site and wiki content were not, as far as I know, included in the grant from Oracle. There has clearly been no objection, the domains were transferred to the ASF, but technically that does not in any way change the copyright status of any of the content. (The source-code grant, by the way, did not transfer any copyright to the ASF. It simply provided a license to the ASF that allowed the ASF to publish and make derivatives under its license. Copyright in the original content continues to abide with Oracle.) While casual treatment of this sort of thing succeeds in some situations, here the interests and concerns of The Apache Software Foundation as a public-interest entity come into play. It is expected that folks on Apache projects will play nice with the intellectual property of others. In particular, 2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be under a new license is not ever automatically true. If there is already a license, the terms of that license will determine what is possible with a derivative work (with changes). Even copying is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, so the license matters there too. In the absence of a license, (2) is not permitted at all by anyone but the copyright holder or someone authorized by the copyright holder (i.e., being licensed to do so). Finally, and most important, making changes does not give anyone different rights to the parts that survive from the original work. (Fine points about license conditions apply here, but one should never assume that a legitimate licensing of a derivative work has any impact on the IP interests in the surviving content of the original work.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: janI [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 09:02 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap] [ ... ] PDL is a sort of copyleft license. This is a excelent question. I ask to my self how the TDF did about (more) this question. Can we do like them? Simply overwrite the license and to continue the devel? (i remember when they copied all sites/docs/contents, like api site, and changed the license) I have seen similar things happen in other wikis. The way forward seems to be 1) announce the intention of changing license. 2) request contributors who do not agree, to remove their pages (we have mail adresses on the users) 3) give contributors time to do it. 4) change license. We should put the license in as part of create user, as an do you accept, thereby we only have a problem with existing users. Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective, does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation between new material (under Apache) and legacy content? Maybe this is the unique way. By other hand, is a opportunity of review all content in the wiki, reorder and clean it, and evolve based in the correct license. In some cases, we can see the page history and try to find the author. Some parts, i believe that is all from Sun/Oracle copyright, so transfered to ASF. A cleanup would be nice independent of which way we go The word re-licensing is not a show stopper. 1) We are not obligated to store those pages for ever, we can, with notice, delete the pages 2) We are allowed to copy the pages, with changes, and the new page can be under a new license rgds jan I My 2¢ Claudio - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
+1 I prepared my response before I saw this one. There is still need to be careful around this: However, when we create new material, including enhancements Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible. 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2 can be introduced. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap] [ ... ] All those portal pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html PDL is a sort of copyleft license. We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of that can be treated as ALv2. [ ... ] This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant, why remove? The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard. However, when we create new material, including enhancements of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should not be a problem. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: +1 I prepared my response before I saw this one. There is still need to be careful around this: However, when we create new material, including enhancements Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible. 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2 can be introduced. The ICLA says: Contribution shall mean any original work of authorship, including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the Work). For the purposes of this definition, submitted means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You as Not a Contribution. So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is documentation of, yes? -Rob -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap] [ ... ] All those portal pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html PDL is a sort of copyleft license. We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of that can be treated as ALv2. [ ... ] This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant, why remove? The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard. However, when we create new material, including enhancements of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should not be a problem. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
I don't believe the ASF iCLA I filed stipulates anything about ALv2, although it certainly stipulates what my contributions grant to the ASF and to anyone who receives my contribution via the ASF. (Note that the grant to recipients is directly from me, via the iCLA, no matter what the ALv2 says.) My comment is mainly with respect to pages on the wiki that are covered by licenses other than the ALv2 and what contributing any modifications to them entails, no matter what the ASF gets from me under the terms of my iCLA. Of course, a click-through registration that asserts ALv2 for contributions is fine, although the ASF and recipients still have more rights than that for any contribution I make. The current statement about treating materials not under the default license still applies and I suspect a form of that has to remain in any click-through on registration. The iCLA doesn't (and can't) alter that situation. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 01:24 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap] On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: +1 I prepared my response before I saw this one. There is still need to be careful around this: However, when we create new material, including enhancements Of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. 1. When enhancing existing materials, the existing license must be honored. How additional licensing works depends on the specific Conditions. It should not be automatically assumed possible. 2. Since our having accounts on the wiki are subject to the rules for The wiki, I'm not sure the ICLA governs (1). As committers, we certainly shouldn't be asserting any other license, but the current license on the work is going to determine whether and how the ALv2 can be introduced. The ICLA says: Contribution shall mean any original work of authorship, including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the Work). For the purposes of this definition, submitted means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You as Not a Contribution. So I think that covers wiki contributions as well since that is documentation of, yes? -Rob -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:28 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap] [ ... ] All those portal pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html PDL is a sort of copyleft license. We've tried to avoid this problem by starting new documentation in ALv2, not using the prior materials. And remember, if we want to borrow material, we have access to the complete Symphony documentation as well, which is included in the IBM SGA for Symphony. So all of that can be treated as ALv2. [ ... ] This is overkill. There is no need to remove PDL pages. Maybe just move them if they are inconvenient? But if the content is relevant, why remove? The way forward is to respect the licenses as they are. We have greater latitude in what legacy licenses are used on the website than we do in the AOO product itself. We've had no problems at all hosting Creative Content licensed documentation, PDL content, etc., on the website, wiki, etc. Nothing has changed in that regard. However, when we create new material, including enhancements of existing material, then we need to respect the ICLA which says our contributions are made under ALv2. This might mean that going forward that modified content is covered by multiple licenses. This should not be a problem
Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote: (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better to continue the discussion) Do we want to clone, for example, the documentation section on all the localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with sub sites (portals) like http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation etc looking almost the same on all languages. This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test added by Claudio a few months ago. See http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case. As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a Master copy in English and then translate it in the various languages as volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to reflect the changes too. AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the French one, though: several of those portals do not see activity since years. Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated: information in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases, and I think it makes sense to continue using it rather than starting clean there too (unless there are plans for a major rewrite). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Fwd: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
Ops! I forgot to add dev and doc as CC... -- Forwarded message -- From: RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com Date: 2013/6/3 Subject: Re: [Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap] To: l...@openoffice.apache.org 2013/6/3 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org On 02/06/2013 RGB ES wrote: (Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better to continue the discussion) Do we want to clone, for example, the documentation section on all the localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with sub sites (portals) like http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/**Documentationhttp://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/DE/**Documentationhttp://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/FR/**Documentationhttp://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation etc looking almost the same on all languages. This can work. We also have this other infrastructure in place http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Main_Testhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Test added by Claudio a few months ago. See http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Template:Langhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:Lang to see how it works. I don't know which approach is best for our case. As for keeping subsites synchronized, in theory this allows to have a Master copy in English and then translate it in the various languages as volunteers become available. In practice, we can't stop someone from editing or creating a translated page to add new content in a language only, but ideally this would imply that the English version is updated to reflect the changes too. AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the French one, though: several of those portals do not see activity since years. Yes, but this does not mean that they are completely outdated: information in those pages is still current and relevant in most cases, and I think it makes sense to continue using it rather than starting clean there too (unless there are plans for a major rewrite). All those portal pages are under PDL license (look at the categories at the bottom of those pages). If we want to promote new wiki content under Apache license, this means a problem. If I read this page right http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html PDL is a sort of copyleft license. Re-license those pages is not possible without the explicit consent of the author, and those pages are so old that contact the authors is almost impossible. Suppose we update those pages to point to the new material. A potential contributor (or just a casual reader) will see the PDL notice on the portal page, and no notice on the new pages: from the user perspective, does this means that the new page is also under PDL? We know it isn't, but this could be a cause of confusion, IMO. So, which is the best way to work around this problem? Reimplement those pages, making a clear separation between new material (under Apache) and legacy content? Regards Ricardo Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgl10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.**orgl10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[Discuss][Wiki]Synchronizing (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My roadmap]
(Top posting, CC to dev, doc and l10n, not sure on which one it is better to continue the discussion) Moving the discussion to its own thread, see below for a copy of the previous messages or better here: http://markmail.org/message/x6wntz5nwefj7ko3 (just skip the first message that had a completely different purpose...) The original thread shows two problems. I'll not talk about the first one here (to not communicate what someone is doing, at the risk of waste the efforts of someone else that it's working on the same task). The second problem, the one considered here, is about how do we want to organize the wiki. Do we want to clone, for example, the documentation section on all the localized sites, just translating it? On Sun times that was the idea, with sub sites (portals) like http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DE/Documentation http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/FR/Documentation etc looking almost the same on all languages. AFAIK, right now the only of those sub sites updated recently is the French one, though: several of those portals do not see activity since years. I don't think that this cloning is possible or even desirable. Of course an easy way to arrive to the same resources on the different languages *is* desirable, and for this purpose a consolidated directory structure is certainly useful, but if instead of /ES/Documentation we use /ES/Manuales I cannot really see the problem. Also, there is the problem that the content available on those old sites is mainly outdated, build by a third party project and some(many)times with the wrong license. Do we want to update that content or start almost from scratch with the new user guide under Apache license, moving old content to a legacy section? Of course starting from scratch is more work, but updating documents with a cocktail of licenses will be a problem too. And note that starting from scratch does not mean trashing old content, it's just saying this is the old content, maybe it's still useful, but we are working on the new one here. I think this was briefly discussed before on the dev list (with no clear output), but I cannot find the original thread now. Regards Ricardo -- Forwarded message -- From: Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org Date: 2013/6/1 Subject: Re: [UserGuide]My roadmap To: OpenOffice Documentation d...@openoffice.apache.org On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/6/1 Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/6/1 Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org Is important to re-gain organization on the documentation project resources like: - ToDo List - Wishlist - Dashboard - Help process This resources althought outdated are pretty helpful for new and experienced contributors to organize the work going on. I generate a spanish version of the portal, but would need more than just cloning old information . http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Documentation Can you please use the ES mailing list to discuss whatever you want to do on the ES wiki FIRST of doing it? There is already a documentation section and a how to participate section here http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Manuales http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Participar If you look carefully you'll see other people beside me that started to work on the site several month ago. As a matter of fact, the Spanish user guide is more advanced than the English one (just see the macro section)... Following discussions on the ES mailing list, the ES wiki was completely cleaned up and rebuilt almost from scratch last year. This is not a ES related matter, but a localization convention on working and organizing languages on the Wiki. There is a PDL and Template for languages, in order to use the different localizations of the projects and the menu extensions labeled Other languages. Documentation or l10n lists is the only propper channels I can think on discussing this since is not only use by ES but the other languages. The content is also outdated on this project, not only on ES. The wishlist hasnt been updated since 2009 and there is already a *NeedsRework* category for the ToDo List. Only the French documentation page was updated recently, all the other localizations do not see work since several years so you are talking about a convention set on the old Sun times that nobody seems to follow now and thus not necessarily valid today. If you want to discuss this or other conventions please start a new thread. But even if we accept a general convention (something that did not happen yet) and even if we accept that this convention is not a matter for the ES list (!), to coordinate the work on the ES wiki IS something to discuss on
