On 12/20/2020 5:08 PM, marcia wilbur wrote: > Hi. > > This is interesting. When I write a guide, I do indicate the code snippets > are GPL and the content may be covered under a different content license like > GFDL or cc by whatever. This copyright statement does not indicate the code > portions only as GPL but indicates > > EITHER GPL or CC 3 >
Actually the License for those documents is GPL version 3 or later or CCBy 3.0 or later > The license change for a deriv is odd. Especially mixed - so according to cc > by 3.0 - changes must be indicated. However, if the LO team is going by GPL > only then, the content falls under GPL. Back in the day, some people used GPL > for content, that is true. However, the content license (GFDL) was more for > content and GPL for code content within a document. > Actually when LO took over the ODFAuthors site they were within their rights to chose a later version of either or both licenses at the higher level. Regards Keith > Example: oo 3 Calc book > > This document is Copyright © 2005–2010 by its contributors as listed below. > You may > distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU General > Public > License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), version 3 or later, or the > Creative > Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), > version > 3.0 or later. > > Terms of CC by 3: > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the > license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable > manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your > use. > > No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological > measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. > > > LibreOffice copyright: > > This document is Copyright © 2020 by the LibreOffice Documentation Team. > Contributors are > listed below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of > either the GNU General > Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), version 3 or later, or > the Creative > Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), > version 4.0 or later. > > cc by 4.0 > You are free to: > Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format > Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material > for any purpose, even commercially. > > If the original was 3.0... changing to 4.0... well, we could ask someone at > Creative Commons but it's definitely unusual to say the least. > > Also, the message from LO is disappointing: > https://www.libreoffice.org/discover/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/ > > -marcia > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dennis Hamilton" <orc...@msn.com> > To: doc@openoffice.apache.org > Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2020 5:51:13 PM > Subject: RE: How We Implement the new Documentation Process > > Jean Weber knows all the gory details. It was a triumph of policy over > practice and the experienced, actually-contributing writers were driven away. > > > Jean has already mentioned where the writing is done now, even though this > page <https://www.libreoffice.org/community/docs-team/> still links to the > ODF Authors site, which redirects back to > <https://documentation.libreoffice.org/en/english-documentation/>. > > I just looked at the LibreOffice Calc Guide 7.0 at > <https://documentation.libreoffice.org/assets/Uploads/Documentation/en/CG7.0/CG70-CalcGuide.pdf> > > and this is the copyright notice: > > This document is Copyright © 2020 by the LibreOffice Documentation Team. > Contributors are > listed below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of > either the GNU General > Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), version 3 or later, > or the Creative > Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), > version 4.0 or later. > All trademarks within this guide belong to their legitimate owners. > > We know that GPL is toxic for an Apache Software Foundation Project. Whether > CC-by-4.0+ is acceptable for forking to an ASF Project document falls back > on the previous resolution. > > I presume the licensing is identical for the documents from which the > LibreOffice Documentation PDFs are produced. > > Using a non-ASF repository to work around this still raises issues with > regard to using ASF Project committers. And managing it under the AOO > project seems pretty sketchy. > > However, if the OO.o 3.3 documentation was covered by the OASIS grant to the > ASF, then that's a different matter. If that is the case, working from the > OO.o 3.3 documents is completely workable and avoids the feature-drift of > LibreOffice away from Apache OpenOffice (and hence anything derived from OO.o > 3.3/3.4 at Apache). > > My suspicion is in agreement with Keith's that the documentation of interest > was produced outside of Sun/Oracle and Oracle did not have ownership. So the > ASF has no license distinct from what notices on the documents assert. This > seems to be affirmed by the Copyright notices on OpenOffice.org 3.3 > documentation carried at the openoffice.org domain name. The Calc Guide is > listed as copyright by the 42 contributors, including Jean Hollis Weber. > That's essentially a poison pill and that copyright has to be honored, even > in a derivative work. > > These matters can be checked by accessing the relevant materials. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith N. McKenna <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> > Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2020 13:57 > To: doc@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: How We Implament the new Documentation Process > > On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:51:59 +0100, Arrigo Marchiori wrote: > >> Hello Keith, All, >> >> I don't have any proposals at the moment, but one question: >> >> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 12:27:20AM -0000, Keith N. McKenna wrote: >> > [orcmid] [ ... ] >>> 2. Start with the already published 3.3 odt documents and upgrade >>> those to version 4. This could require the work being done outside of >>> the project made up of the people on doc@ do to the 3.3 docs being >>> under what is considered a catagory X license and may not be able to >>> be stored in an Apache repository. >>> >>> If we want to go with #2 there is a way around the possible >>> repository problem. >> >> I understand from your words that there are some issues with licensing >> but I cannot fully understand what is the problem. Could you please >> make it more explicit? > > The old OpenOffice.org (ooo) documentation was duel licensed under either the > GNU General Public License or the Creative Commons Attribution License, > version 3.0 or later. Both are considered Catagory X licenses as defined at: > https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x. I believe that this would > mean that we can not have them in the projects repository although I need to > verify that. > > [orcmid] [ ... ] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
