I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly license."
As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a) several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and (b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't have current contact info or they have died. The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of *either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not allowed, and this page https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL." IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay. Jean On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:36 AM Keith N. McKenna <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: > > I have filed a question with ASF Legal seeking guidance on updating the > older OOo documentation. You can follow it at > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-552 > > Regards > Keith > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org
