openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0
Date Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:53:34 GMT
Is it correct to assume that we are speaking of documentation and, specifically, material for
the OpenOffice.org wiki and web site?

If the idea is to maintain the core material on only one place, you need to decide what is
the upstream source.  It seems to me that means the place with the most-permissive licensing.
 Namely, the AOO sites.

If that is the case, the note below applies, I think.

 - Dennis

Documentation Licensing on AOO sites

I recommend that no license be added to the material, so that the default license on materials
for those sites would apply.  You are already contributing under your iCLA.
See <http://www.openoffice.org/license.html> and the bottom of these pages, <https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page>.
 Other licenses are for legacy content and are not used for new content.

I am operating on the assumption that dual-licensed material are not acceptable in that form
as contributions into ASF Project repositories and sites for the same reason that Category
B materials are isolated.  Share Alike is at least Category B and is arguably Category X.
 
Whether someone makes a derivative under CC-BY-SA (with International 4.0 preferable to 3.0)
is their business, provided the minimal attribution requirements of ALv2 are satisfied.

Of course you are also free to contribute elsewhere under any license you choose, so long
as it is your original work (in the sense that is used in Copyright nomenclature).


-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Waterval [mailto:waterval.guy@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 04:41
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Double licence ALv2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

Hi Michael,
Hi all,

2015-03-11 12:14 GMT+01:00 RA Stehmann <anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>:

[...]

But: if a user creates a derived work and puts it unter CC-BY_SA only,
> Apache can't use the derived work.
>
> ("Use" includes also "improve" and "share".)
>
> So the problem is the use of improvements.
>

This is the problem I thought.
For cliparts extensions it's not an issue, because they can be produced
under different licences as they stay external to the AOO project itself.
But a documentation on OpenOffice is more sensible because the improvements
could quickly produce  2 different versions, which is not really
interesting.

Regards
-- 
gw


>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message