>From the Chair, I need to speak up about the "rebasing" business.
1. Use of the ALv2 has nothing to do with trademarks, so this conversation should be on a separate thread. 2. However, it probably should not be held here and certainly not privately by the PMC. If someone wants to pursue it, I suggest these observations be checked with an authoritative source on a more-appropriate list, perhaps legal-discuss. Absent that, I request that this conversation not go any farther. - Dennis - - - - - - - - - - - OBSERVATIONS 3. Whatever the term "rebase" signified, I think we can all agree that it is about a fork (or a "refork: if you prefer). 4. At the ASF, forking is a feature. The only requirement is that the ALv2 (and any other applicable licenses) be honored. I know, people can be unhappy and will object. But the ASF position, to the extent one is needed, is captured by "forking is a feature." 5. The ASF *does*not* police the use of ALv2 content by third parties. The ASF prides itself on how it manages third-party and contributed content. The ASF is meticulous about IP provenance. That is part of the way in which the ASF operates in the public interest by being an extraordinary open-source citizen. That is what the ASF does. It is not about what others might or might not do. 6. It is up to third parties to satisfy themselves that they are operating with any incorporated ALv2 code and its derivatives appropriately. It is not the business of the ASF to warrant anything about such activity. Those who wish to reuse and repurpose code from the third party must also satisfy themselves. That has nothing directly to do with the ASF. 7. Here is further evidence that the ASF is not the ALv2 sheriff over third-party reliance and handling of ALv2 code in their works. It is perfectly clear that closed-source works that have code dependencies on ALv2 works of others are not required to provide an account to anybody, as far as ALv2 license terms go, beyond the appropriate provision of LICENSE/NOTICE files. - - - - - - PERSONAL REMARK I have personally confirmed that a kindred OpenOffice.org-descendant does indeed satisfy the LICENSE/NOTICE provisions of the ALv2. Those files were, in fact, easier for me to find in the installed binaries than in installs of Apache OpenOffice distributions. I have also remarked, in a discussion elsewhere, that I feel the way ALv2 is characterized in individual derivative files I've examined is, to my taste, a bit sketchy. However, the observed practice is not unusual and even happens in the publishing industry where there tends to be serious attention to rights and permissions. I don't think there is a legality question, just my own fussiness, and that of some others, in how provenance and attribution is accounted for in our own work. It should be well-known by now that my fussiness threshold is rather different than that of many other developers [;<). This does not matter. I am not an ALv2 cop either. I can only satisfy myself on what I rely on and how I am comfortable that I know enough about its provenance to feel safe in doing so. -----Original Message----- From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 07:58 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List ...) Hi, > On 29 Aug 15, at 21:13, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: [ ... ] > We should (re)acknowledge what (re)based on Apache OpenOffice requires > whatever that really is. Yep. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
