Of course, while in the libreoffice code last week, I did notice a tremendous amount of references to and use of "openoffice".
I had been in the help for Libreoffice! /user/share/libreoffice/help/en-us Attached is a screen capture "default.css". Now, I am not *as* familiar (yet) with the Apache License as I am with the GPL, So, I think this may be another ticket for legal to review. In a fork with GPL, no reference to the original software is made. I forked remastersys, and worked with the dev to transition, then renamed it respin. No instances of the original app/tool are in my code. However, not sure about Apache license. Most of my dev history is under the GPL. - but I had conducted a search in libreoffice and returned a large amount of files and directories: openoffice Maybe legal knows, because I even found starmath there. So: Can a fork use the original tool/app/utility name in the code they release. It's just odd to see a fork reference the original in the code and directories... Having so many references to openoffice in the code really seems to indicate a relationship or something. Anyway. as a developer, with respect to the original app - maybe change the references in the code to Libreoffice! Anyway - Keith, do you know if this is "okay" or not. Or if you can ask legal, they may have an answer. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean Weber" <jeanwe...@gmail.com> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 2:45:41 AM Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation Help content is part of the program itself, so of course it's Apache license. User guides are not part of the program, hence the uncertainty of whether they must also be the same Apache license. Jean On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:35 PM marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com> wrote: > > FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0 > > > ========================================================================== > Guide content for Writer (example) > > Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide directory > ========================================================================== > Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the content files in > LibreOffice to confirm the license. > > Just FYI on the status of the help files. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dennis Hamilton" <orc...@msn.com> > To: doc@openoffice.apache.org > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM > Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation > > I believe GPL is still category X. > > The compatibility claim is not bi-directional. Apache-licensed code can be > incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that is not OK > generally. (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing their code on AOO in > order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits, but LibreOffice code cannot be > backported to AOO.) > > The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a > restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in > the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned. > > If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice > 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean Weber <jeanwe...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58 > To: doc@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation > > 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, > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org
