openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + (was branding)
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:15:59 GMT
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 19:12 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc
>> have?  If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and
>> redistribute the documentation then we need it under Apache 2.0, which
>> is what would happen if the author signed the iCLA.
> The user guides are under CC-BY license. Your hypothetical case could
> reuse them just as they could reuse material under the Apache license.

All content contributed directly to the project is done in Apache 2.0.
 But there is some allowance for using 3rd party components that have
a compatible license.  A list of compatible licenses currently
recognized are listed here:

As you can see, CC-BY 2.5 is included in that list.  So I think we're good.


> Yes, I realise you're talking about wiki material in the rest of this
> note.
> --Jean
>> Project releases, naturally, are all under Apache 2.0 and must
>> guarantee these rights.  This is true for any doc that is bundled with
>> them.
>> As you know, we don't currently bundle the wiki doc with the releases.
>>  But should we reserve the right to do this?  Let me give you a very
>> plausible use case for that:
>> Imagine a school or government department, or a company, that wants to
>> deploy OpenOffice in their organization, but also wants to host their
>> own copy of the wiki documentation, inside their firewall, perhaps
>> with some customized material.  This could range from adding
>> additional links to internal template servers, to removing irrelevant
>> information, to adding documentation regarding internal-only plugins.
>> It could be complete, or only for some small number of pages.
>> Is something like that a reasonable use?  Something that we should
>> "reserve the right" to support?  I think so.  If we ever wanted to
>> support something like this, then we would need the wiki (or at least
>> the core doc parts of the wiki) be under a common permissive license.

View raw message