In the thread titled "CC License on Externally-Produced Documentation" (started on Jan 22), DaveB pointed out:
"There is nothing to discuss by the PMC or anyone else about having the documentation on an ASF-owned repository. This has been happening since AOO first came into existence see: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_Chapters_ODT All of those are under 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, being served from Registrant Organization: The Apache Software Foundation." That is an excellent point. Let's just move forward with requesting a repository for documentation. Francis On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 3:18 PM Keith N. McKenna <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: > See one comment in line. > On 1/9/2021 12:05 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote: > > The TL;DR: What LibreOffice has done is no use for the creation of AOO > documentation. > > > > THE SITUATION > > > > First, what LibreOffice does about cleaning up their help files is not > something of concern to AOO (although leaving in links to openoffice.org > support would be annoying). > > > > LibreOffice has made two noteworthy forks, one from openoffice.org > (under LGPL license), and one from AOO (under Apache license). The second > allowed LibreOffice to fork code contributed to the ASF by IBM that was not > part of openoffice.org. The Apache-licensed fork also allowed the > derivative to be licensed under the MPL, the license offered on current > releases of LibreOffice. [L]GPL licenses do not permit this. It is also > the case that patches and bug reports at AOO can be absorbed by LibreOffice > (and not vice versa) although the maintenance and feature changes in the > time since LibreOffice was originally forked makes LibreOffice increasingly > different. > > > One slight errata one the above paragraph. We can and have received code > from LibreOffice as long as the author of that code agrees to dual > license it under ALv2 and current LO license.A work around for sure but > it has gained us some code fixes. > > Keith > > > Technically, making a derivative that is made available under a > different license does not impact the copyright on the original code or the > unaltered code in the derivative. That has to do with how copyright > works. Generally, one has no copyright on work of another. The prominent > exception is work for hire, where the employer has copyright where the > employee would have otherwise. That is not the issue here. > >> I do not speak for the ASF or ASF Legal. I can point out that the ASF > has expressed disinterest in policing how others fork code from ASF > projects apart from abuses of ASF trademarks. > > > > ASF has a SERIOUS POLICY AND PRACTICE COMMITMENT to clean provenance and > good open-source citizenship of ASF projects and what is carried in project > repositories and releases. IT IS THAT COMMITMENT that gives rise to the > difficulty of building ASF Project content based on the OpenOffice.org > documentation produced elsewhere and not part of the Oracle grant of > openoffice.org code to the ASF. (This extends to how libraries under > different licenses, when optionally used in builds of ASF releases, are > excluded from direct inclusion in the ASF Project repositories, a provision > that is not helpful in deriving documentation for AOO.) > > > > While it may seem peculiar, it is the case that the ASF has no concern > were a third party to fork the OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation and align > it with current AOO releases, provided that ASF trademarks were respected > and there was no claimed origin and support of the ASF and the AOO > project. The results should respect all licenses and copyright of the > original documentation, of course. > > > > It is unfortunate that the good offices of the ODF Authors project were > not accepted at a time when it could have made a difference. That option > is no longer available. Jean Weber is to be commended for the effort she > expended in providing that opportunity. The AOO Project did not exercise > the will or the capacity to take that avenue. And here we are, where we > have always been, as time goes by. > > > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: marcia wilbur <ai...@well.com> > > Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 04:17 > > To: doc@openoffice.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo > documentation > > > > 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 > > > > >
