openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2011 01:15:59 GMT
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com> 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:

http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a

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

-Rob


> 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.
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message