openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Access to wiki
Date Sun, 07 Aug 2011 01:05:49 GMT
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> I think Rob's appraisal establishes pretty clearly that considerable adaptation to individual
cases must apply.  There is material that is clearly more technical, although I am not so
clear that it has to be considered release content.  There is material that, whatever its
technical nature, appears not to be licensed under the Oracle grant, and other material that
might be.  The separations might not be in the same places.
> I don't think there is any wholesale action that can be applied to subsuming
under Apache.

 It is much more than just 2 categories, official or unofficial doc.
Looking around I see things like:

a) Official doc (current)
b) Official doc (obsolete)
c) Doc in progress (active)
d) Doc in progress (abandoned)
e) Project planning docs
f)  Pages related directly to the development of the product, e.g.,
build instructions, architecture notes, coding standards, etc.
g) Marketing and event related pages
h) Pages related to the governance of the project, e.g., minutes from
engineering steering committee meetings, etc.
i) Biography/home pages for project volunteers
j) And probably many other categories

Some of this maps directly to what a typical Apache project does on
its website.  Some of it maps to what a typical Apache project would
call documentation.  I don't think that we can simply say, "If it is
not official product doc in a release then it is appropriate to allow
anyone to edit it anonymously under whatever license they want".  The
content on the wiki is not exclusively in the categories of official
doc and community doc.  It has a lot of other stuff as well.

Remember, the wiki was not just where product documentation was
developed. was both the public facing website as well
as the project's working website.  It was self-contained.

1) Migrate the wiki off of Oracle and on to Apache machines.  But
pending further consensus, keep it read-only except to committers.

2) At the same time, make the Oracle-hosted version be read-only.

3) Figure out the minimal number of changes necessary for the PPMC to
have consensus that Oracle can shut down their server and switch the
domain to point to the Apache version. This might include things like
branding, license, policies, appointment/confirmation of
admins/moderators, etc.

4) Prepare notification to community about the new website.

5) Go live, along with notification to community

>  - Dennis
> As well as I can tell, there is a Copyright notice on that page, but no license:
> <>.
> The notice is by the link to this page:
> <>.
> So, if this is not subject to the Oracle license grant, there's not a lot to be done
about this.
> This related page is even more intriguing:
> <>.
> There, these terms of use are linked, and the grants in section 4 kick in:
> <>.
> So some of this might be covered by the Oracle license grant, and some of it might not
be.  I think that, on an individual-case basis, that determination governs our ability to
(1) host on the site only versus (2) moving to an site and to make
derivatives that are licensed differently (with appropriate attribution, etc., of course)
without further permission being obtained.

Yes, it is a mess.  We can't change the past.  But we can improve the
future if we require that new contributions are uniformly under Apache

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir []
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 14:47
> To:
> Subject: Re: Access to wiki
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Kazunari Hirano <> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>> Let's look at a few examples on the wiki:
>>> Page on performance tuning initiatives in OOo:
>> Do you mean ""?
> Yes, thanks.
>>> The editors of this page are almost entirely Sun and RedFlag
>>> employees.  It directly concerns plans and approaches to modifying the
>>> code.  This isn't really doc at all.  But I don't think it is
>>> "community" either.  Performance tuning is a core development
>>> function.  In every other Apache project information like this would
>>> be part of the core website, where developers would
>>> most likely look for it.
>> Thanks,
>> khirano
>> --
>> Kazunari Hirano
>> Tohoku Japan needs your help.

View raw message