Documentation wiki: license requirement?

[Frank Peters-2]

Andre Schnabel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Frank Peters schrieb:
>>>
>>> Correct. But again - this situation is caused by the way, the wiki
>>> started. As it started without licensing resctrictions, only the
>>> Copyright is relevant.
>>
>> The wiki copyright page states
>> "Copyright 1999-2007 by the contributing authors and Sun Microsystems,
>> Inc."
>>
>> Does that imply that Sun as joint copyright holder could impose
>> a license on the content, for example, PDL on unlicensed docs content?
>
> I don't know, if this is enough to establish a joint copyright (in the
> same way as JCA does) but I don't think so.
>
> If this would be the case I would say, we could not add content from
> third parties to the wiki. E.g. a Creative Commons licensed material
> could not be added without asking the authors, because the license does
> not allow to grant copyright privileges to a third party.  (This was the
> same with PDL or any other regular license).

Oh my. Attorneys are nature's revenge for civilization (no
disrespect) ;-)

Frank


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Scott Carr]

Frank Peters wrote:

> Andre Schnabel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Frank Peters schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> Correct. But again - this situation is caused by the way, the wiki
>>>> started. As it started without licensing resctrictions, only the
>>>> Copyright is relevant.
>>>
>>> The wiki copyright page states
>>> "Copyright 1999-2007 by the contributing authors and Sun
>>> Microsystems, Inc."
>>>
>>> Does that imply that Sun as joint copyright holder could impose
>>> a license on the content, for example, PDL on unlicensed docs content?
>>
>> I don't know, if this is enough to establish a joint copyright (in
>> the same way as JCA does) but I don't think so.
>>
>> If this would be the case I would say, we could not add content from
>> third parties to the wiki. E.g. a Creative Commons licensed material
>> could not be added without asking the authors, because the license
>> does not allow to grant copyright privileges to a third party.  (This
>> was the same with PDL or any other regular license).
>
> Oh my. Attorneys are nature's revenge for civilization (no
> disrespect) ;-)
>
> Frank

This has been the one MAJOR headache I have had through my time on this
project.  ;-)

--
Scott Carr
OpenOffice.org
Documenation Co-Lead

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Jean Hollis Weber-3]

On 26 March 2007, Frank Peters wrote:

> Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
>> I am thinking about moving doc content from elsewhere (eg OOoAuthors
>> or my or others' own personal websites), where the existing material
>> is under Creative Commons license. If such material could stay under
>> CC on the wiki, then that would be perfect.
>
> It looks like this is the case.
>
>> I see no particular reason why some sections of the wiki cannot be
>> under CC and other under PDF. Each page could carry a small license
>> note at the bottom, to indicate which it is, so that contributors
>> (and, in the case of CC-licensed materials, reusers) would know
>> exactly what the situation is.
>
> Yes, agreed. For the existing doc relevant pages we should look
> at clarifying the licensing situation by placing a license note
> where required.

Does this issue need to be referred to any "higher authority" at
OpenOffice.org for a decision, or can we proceed on the basis
that material can be placed on the wiki under CC license, with
those pages being identified as having that particular license
(by placing a license note on them)?

I want to make sure this issue doesn't fall into a black hole and
never get a decision and action. Thank you all!

--Jean

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Marbux]

Perhaps a way forward:

Modify the editing screen on the wiki with licensing options. Specify
the license you would prefer to have people use as the default. Give
options to select other popular licenses or to specify a license that
isn't in the small set of licenses listed with check boxes. Write a
routine that will display notice of the relevant license along with
the content added. Programmatically disallow the submission of content
without a license selection.

But I looked at the issue of wikis and licensing hard about a year ago
or so. Any license that requires attribution is problematic if a wiki
enables any automated way to exporting content, e.g., XML-RPC, RSS
feeds, mirroring, etc. The problem is that on the original wiki,
attribution can be found by clicking through the page's versions. It's
arguable whether that constitutes a "notice" as required by most
licenses to begin with. But none of the popular methods of syndicating
content export anything beyond the most recent page version, so the
notice of attribution for the page's  contributors disappears. So the
export of the content, which necessitates copying of the content, is a
copyright violation pure and simple.

The Creative Commons Non-Attribution 1.0 license is the only major
license I ever found that was appropriate for a wiki with multiple
page editors, short of just placing all of the content in the public
domain.

I have no good work-around for that problem. It's a situation of
technology leapfrogging the law. I suspect that ultimately, it will be
the law that has to bend to reality rather than vice versa.

Best regards,

Marbux

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

> On 26 March 2007, Frank Peters wrote:
>> Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
>>> I am thinking about moving doc content from elsewhere (eg OOoAuthors
>>> or my or others' own personal websites), where the existing material
>>> is under Creative Commons license. If such material could stay under
>>> CC on the wiki, then that would be perfect.
>>
>> It looks like this is the case.
>>
>>> I see no particular reason why some sections of the wiki cannot be
>>> under CC and other under PDF. Each page could carry a small license
>>> note at the bottom, to indicate which it is, so that contributors
>>> (and, in the case of CC-licensed materials, reusers) would know
>>> exactly what the situation is.
>>
>> Yes, agreed. For the existing doc relevant pages we should look
>> at clarifying the licensing situation by placing a license note
>> where required.
>
> Does this issue need to be referred to any "higher authority" at
> OpenOffice.org for a decision, or can we proceed on the basis that
> material can be placed on the wiki under CC license, with those pages
> being identified as having that particular license (by placing a license
> note on them)?

> I want to make sure this issue doesn't fall into a black hole and never
> get a decision and action. Thank you all!

I don't know if the community council has any stakes in that.
The current situation is that there is no general license term.
I will check back with Stefan Taxhet on his thoughts on that.

Frank



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

marbux wrote:

> Modify the editing screen on the wiki with licensing options. Specify
> the license you would prefer to have people use as the default. Give
> options to select other popular licenses or to specify a license that
> isn't in the small set of licenses listed with check boxes. Write a
> routine that will display notice of the relevant license along with
> the content added. Programmatically disallow the submission of content
> without a license selection.

This sounds like a good idea but it would need to be decided by
the CC?

> But I looked at the issue of wikis and licensing hard about a year ago
> or so. Any license that requires attribution is problematic if a wiki
> enables any automated way to exporting content, e.g., XML-RPC, RSS
> feeds, mirroring, etc. The problem is that on the original wiki,
> attribution can be found by clicking through the page's versions. It's
> arguable whether that constitutes a "notice" as required by most
> licenses to begin with. But none of the popular methods of syndicating
> content export anything beyond the most recent page version, so the
> notice of attribution for the page's  contributors disappears. So the
> export of the content, which necessitates copying of the content, is a
> copyright violation pure and simple.
>
> The Creative Commons Non-Attribution 1.0 license is the only major
> license I ever found that was appropriate for a wiki with multiple
> page editors, short of just placing all of the content in the public
> domain.
>
> I have no good work-around for that problem. It's a situation of
> technology leapfrogging the law. I suspect that ultimately, it will be
> the law that has to bend to reality rather than vice versa.

It's a nasty situation and it's particularly irksome that this
uncertainty hinders free development and doesn't help the user
a thing.

Frank



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Andrew Jensen-2]

> >
>
> It's a nasty situation and it's particularly irksome that this
> uncertainty hinders free development and doesn't help the user
> a thing.
>
> Frank
>
>
Hi,

I've been reading along silently and now I would like to make a comment.

What the heck is all the fuss about?

Look, why is this an issue at all - if you post to a public wiki it is
in the Public Domain - maybe I am being naive but here is how I feel:
maybe someone will come along and use something that I posted to the
wiki in their own work - great!

That was why I took the time to make postings there in the first
place, to give away some information that someone else might find
useful. The operative terms there being 'give away' and 'useful'.

Just my perspective on this, after all the name is OO.o not OO.corp - isn't it?

Drew Jensen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Andre Schnabel]

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Jensen schrieb:
>
> What the heck is all the fuss about?
About legal issues :-(

>
> Look, why is this an issue at all - if you post to a public wiki it is
> in the Public Domain - maybe I am being naive but here is how I feel:
> maybe someone will come along and use something that I posted to the
> wiki in their own work - great!

I consider my own contributions to the wiki as public domain as well
(left aside, that PD is not really possible in local German law - but
sometimes it is PD, as I cannot claim copyrigh for small edits - strange
thing :-)).


>
> That was why I took the time to make postings there in the first
> place, to give away some information that someone else might find
> useful. The operative terms there being 'give away' and 'useful'.

That's why I made my contributions. But other people feel, that their
contributions are usefull but should be protected by a license. This is
for example Jean's third party contribution or Maho san's writings about
QA process (he likes to see this as LGPL'ed text).
This is the right of every author - to protect her work. Some people
(like FSF) even say, that only by applying a license the content becomes
free.

I know many people who do not like to see their writings in proprietary
products - or sold for money ...

André


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

Hi Andrew,

>> It's a nasty situation and it's particularly irksome that this
>> uncertainty hinders free development and doesn't help the user
>> a thing.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
> Hi,
>
> I've been reading along silently and now I would like to make a comment.
>
> What the heck is all the fuss about?
>
> Look, why is this an issue at all - if you post to a public wiki it is
> in the Public Domain - maybe I am being naive but here is how I feel:
> maybe someone will come along and use something that I posted to the
> wiki in their own work - great!

> That was why I took the time to make postings there in the first
> place, to give away some information that someone else might find
> useful. The operative terms there being 'give away' and 'useful'.

Excellent. That's how you and I feel and it would be great if
everyone feeled that way. But you cannot be sure, so you need to
codify the situation to be on the safe side. Otherwise the project
may run into a situation where it gets lawsuited because of copyright
or license infringements. The legal situation is such that if there
is no license attached to content you need to ask the content owner/
copyright holder for explicit permission to use the content.

> Just my perspective on this, after all the name is OO.o not OO.corp -
> isn't it?

I wish it was so simple. And it would be if there were no
attorneys involved (and that's my favorite wishful thinking).
Actually, license and legal is an issue even with non-commercial
institutions. Wikipedia has copyright and license terms as well.

Frank


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Marbux]

On 4/3/07, Andrew Jensen <drewjensen.inbox@...> wrote:

> > >
> I've been reading along silently and now I would like to make a comment.
>
> What the heck is all the fuss about?
>
> Look, why is this an issue at all - if you post to a public wiki it is
> in the Public Domain - maybe I am being naive but here is how I feel:
> maybe someone will come along and use something that I posted to the
> wiki in their own work - great!
>
> That was why I took the time to make postings there in the first
> place, to give away some information that someone else might find
> useful. The operative terms there being 'give away' and 'useful'.
>
> Just my perspective on this, after all the name is OO.o not OO.corp - isn't it?

I believe that is the way it *should* work. And truth be told I'd like
to see what is copyrightable drastically curtailed. But in the U.S.
since 1989, copyright is automatic. I.e., it's opt-out rather than
opt-in. Unless a license is specifically granted, any copying of the
content is legally an infringement.

So in the U.S., posting to a public wiki implicitly allows the web
site operator to publish the content. But reproducing the content in
any other way exceeds the implied license.

Like I said earlier, I have no work-around for the problem of
recycling wiki content, at least none that isn't pretty intricate. I
suspect that is why all wikis that can be edited by the public simply
ignore the problem.  The downside is that it does leave the site
operator exposed legally, albeit the risk is small.

Best regards,

Marbux

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[DougT]

Drew,
You get all of my votes plus any extras I can find lying around.

Frank,
I understand your position, but not your resignation to the status quo.

* My opinion: the OOo wiki is a public domain forum.  I couldn't care
less about what Wikipedia does with their material.  If people want to
publish to the OOo wiki, it should be with the unequivocal understanding
that to do so places their own work in the PD.  If they need to click on
a "I agree" button to make it official, so be it. Further, if they are
copying, excerpting, or otherwise drawing on copyrighted material, it is
their responsibility to ensure that such posting complies with whatever
license, law, treaty, or regulation under which the material is
released.  Why should it be the responsibility of a mostly volunteer
project to protect the ignorati from themselves?

* Anyone who feels their material is too sacred to place in the public
domain is free to publish anywhere else they would like.

* Matters like this are the primary reason I quit trying to contribute.
I refuse to place myself under the thumbs of people who appear to want
only to create another bureaucracy with its own set of arbitrary rules
in order to burden others, stifle productivity, and eradicate
creativity.  If I cannot freely contribute my own work to be used
without concerns for JCA, CCL, or any other TLA, why bother?  Sure, I am
free to follow my own advice and publish wherever else I please, but it
isn't worth the effort to me.

As for lawyers, I live in the middle of tens of thousands of square
miles of mostly empty, semi-arid land.  I will gladly lead the
experiments designed to assess the agricultural value of lawyers,
judges, and politicians.  In theory, their usefulness as fertilizer
should be great, but I'm concerned that it wouldn't be possible to
reduce the concentration to levels that wouldn't be toxic.  Anybody want
to join me in applying for a study grant?

--
DougT

Frank Peters wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>>> It's a nasty situation and it's particularly irksome that this
>>> uncertainty hinders free development and doesn't help the user
>>> a thing.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been reading along silently and now I would like to make a comment.
>>
>> What the heck is all the fuss about?
>>
>> Look, why is this an issue at all - if you post to a public wiki it is
>> in the Public Domain - maybe I am being naive but here is how I feel:
>> maybe someone will come along and use something that I posted to the
>> wiki in their own work - great!
>
>> That was why I took the time to make postings there in the first
>> place, to give away some information that someone else might find
>> useful. The operative terms there being 'give away' and 'useful'.
>
> Excellent. That's how you and I feel and it would be great if
> everyone feeled that way. But you cannot be sure, so you need to
> codify the situation to be on the safe side. Otherwise the project
> may run into a situation where it gets lawsuited because of copyright
> or license infringements. The legal situation is such that if there
> is no license attached to content you need to ask the content owner/
> copyright holder for explicit permission to use the content.
>
>> Just my perspective on this, after all the name is OO.o not OO.corp -
>> isn't it?
>
> I wish it was so simple. And it would be if there were no
> attorneys involved (and that's my favorite wishful thinking).
> Actually, license and legal is an issue even with non-commercial
> institutions. Wikipedia has copyright and license terms as well.
>
> Frank
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Marbux]

On 4/3/07, DougT <dthompson@...> wrote:

> Drew,
> You get all of my votes plus any extras I can find lying around.
>
> Frank,
> I understand your position, but not your resignation to the status quo.
>
> * My opinion: the OOo wiki is a public domain forum.  I couldn't care
> less about what Wikipedia does with their material.  If people want to
> publish to the OOo wiki, it should be with the unequivocal understanding
> that to do so places their own work in the PD.  If they need to click on
> a "I agree" button to make it official, so be it. Further, if they are
> copying, excerpting, or otherwise drawing on copyrighted material, it is
> their responsibility to ensure that such posting complies with whatever
> license, law, treaty, or regulation under which the material is
> released.

+1. Copyrighted material can be parked on another site and linked from the wiki.

> As for lawyers, I live in the middle of tens of thousands of square
> miles of mostly empty, semi-arid land.  I will gladly lead the
> experiments designed to assess the agricultural value of lawyers,
> judges, and politicians.  In theory, their usefulness as fertilizer
> should be great, but I'm concerned that it wouldn't be possible to
> reduce the concentration to levels that wouldn't be toxic.  Anybody want
> to join me in applying for a study grant?
>
:-)

Best regards,

Marbux
(who is happily retired and no longer a lawyer)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Jean Hollis Weber-3]

marbux wrote:
> +1. Copyrighted material can be parked on another site and linked from
> the wiki.

Quite true, and that's more or less the situation we have now
with the Docs website: it links to material that for various
reasons can't go on the OOo website itself.

Unfortunately, that's not the best solution for the users, unless
it's possible to set up a search on the wiki (or the Docs
website) that would include the linked material.

The problems I'm trying to help solve are twofold: (1) users
trying to find answers quickly and easily in the mass of
available info; (2) users being able to access all that info on
the web if they want to, in addition to being able to download it
in PDF or ODT. Putting copyright material on another site in HTML
or wiki form solves (2), but it doesn't solve (1).

If there is a better, or more workable, way to solve (1) I would
be delighted to learn about it. I know there are lots of tools
and methods available that I am unaware of, and more appearing
all the time.

--Jean



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[luispo]

Hi,
Sorry for entering this late; I don't always scan this list.

We actually have (naturally) visited this issue. Early this year, it  
was brought to my attention that there was no really informative  
copyright information and guidance for the wikis, and the idea I and  
others had was that it would be best to extend the copyright of the  
OOo site to the wikis.  I wrote some language and put it on the wiki  
footer after consulting with Stefan.

This language was a mistake :-)

André S. corrected it (some scorching involved--we both cite the same  
issue, too) [0] and we returned to status quo ante. Except that I  
think that there needs to be copyright info that is better than what  
we have now but that we cannot retroactively determine the copyright  
of existing material. The error of the previous language was that it  
seemed to state that, though that was not my intention when I wrote it.

So, I'd be happy with posting something like, "Content posted after  
[date] is licensed in accordance with OpenOffice.org's license  
policy, which can be found at http://www.openoffice.org/ 
license.html.  Content posted prior to this date is copyrighted Sun  
Microsystems and the contributing authors."

In addition, I think we should update the license page as Jean  
suggests to reflect the license that can be used on the wiki. The  
Community Council is the one to adjudicate this.

In short:

* To propose the language I suggest above for new docs posted to the  
wiki; and,
* To edit the License.html page to accommodate the wiki's (editable)  
nature.

Best,
Louis




[0] http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73421

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Alex Thurgood]

Le mardi 3 avril 2007 22:MM, marbux a écrit :

Hi Marbux,

> Like I said earlier, I have no work-around for the problem of
> recycling wiki content, at least none that isn't pretty intricate. I
> suspect that is why all wikis that can be edited by the public simply
> ignore the problem.  The downside is that it does leave the site
> operator exposed legally, albeit the risk is small.

Some wikis make you accept the licensing terms as a condition for being able
to edit material when you register (part of the registration process). I
don't know whether this is  possible with the wiki used by CollabNet. At
least this technique could be used for all further contributions.

Alex

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Andre Schnabel]

Hi Louis,

Louis Suarez-Potts schrieb:

>
> André S. corrected it (some scorching involved--we both cite the same
> issue, too) [0] and we returned to status quo ante. Except that I
> think that there needs to be copyright info that is better than what
> we have now but that we cannot retroactively determine the copyright
> of existing material. The error of the previous language was that it
> seemed to state that, though that was not my intention when I wrote it.
>
> So, I'd be happy with posting something like, "Content posted after
> [date] is licensed in accordance with OpenOffice.org's license policy,
> which can be found at http://www.openoffice.org/license.html.  Content
> posted prior to this date is copyrighted Sun Microsystems and the
> contributing authors."

I'd rather would not extend the OOo website licensing terms to the wiki
- see Jean's and DougT's comments.  I second DougT - I'd love to see the
content under Public Domain. But we need to accept other (free)
licenses. So could we rephrase:
"Content posted after [date] is Public Domain as long as there is no
explicit license notice at a single wiki page. Content posted prior to
this date is copyrighted Sun Microsystems and the contributing authors."
Ok - someone needs to make English from that - and we need some clause
for countries where PD is not possible.

André

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

Andre Schnabel wrote:

>> So, I'd be happy with posting something like, "Content posted after
>> [date] is licensed in accordance with OpenOffice.org's license policy,
>> which can be found at http://www.openoffice.org/license.html.  Content
>> posted prior to this date is copyrighted Sun Microsystems and the
>> contributing authors."
>
> I'd rather would not extend the OOo website licensing terms to the wiki
> - see Jean's and DougT's comments.  I second DougT - I'd love to see the
> content under Public Domain. But we need to accept other (free)
> licenses. So could we rephrase:
> "Content posted after [date] is Public Domain as long as there is no
> explicit license notice at a single wiki page. Content posted prior to
> this date is copyrighted Sun Microsystems and the contributing authors."
> Ok - someone needs to make English from that - and we need some clause
> for countries where PD is not possible.

I would second Andre in allowing wiki pages to specify a license
and have a default license for pages that do not specify the their
license.

When can this be put into place?

Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[luispo]

Hi,
On 2007-04-04, at 06:10 , Frank Peters wrote:

> Andre Schnabel wrote:
>
>>> So, I'd be happy with posting something like, "Content posted  
>>> after [date] is licensed in accordance with OpenOffice.org's  
>>> license policy, which can be found at http://www.openoffice.org/ 
>>> license.html.  Content posted prior to this date is copyrighted  
>>> Sun Microsystems and the contributing authors."
>> I'd rather would not extend the OOo website licensing terms to the  
>> wiki - see Jean's and DougT's comments.  I second DougT - I'd love  
>> to see the content under Public Domain. But we need to accept  
>> other (free) licenses. So could we rephrase:
>> "Content posted after [date] is Public Domain as long as there is  
>> no explicit license notice at a single wiki page. Content posted  
>> prior to this date is copyrighted Sun Microsystems and the  
>> contributing authors."
>> Ok - someone needs to make English from that - and we need some  
>> clause for countries where PD is not possible.
>
> I would second Andre in allowing wiki pages to specify a license
> and have a default license for pages that do not specify the their
> license.

That seems good to me, too...  But I'd rather not allow for even the  
possibility of proprietary licenses on the wiki, which the wording  
suggested seems to permit, as does our current wording. Ie, I want  
open licenses.

Thus,

"Content posted after [date] is Public Domain except where otherwise  
noted, in which case copyright holders may use the Public Document  
License (PDL), as noted in the License page of OpenOffice.org, http://
www.openoffice.org/license.html. (Residents of countries that do not  
accept the provisions of the PDL may use an equivalent license,  
though we ask that you check with the Community Council beforehand.)  
Content posted prior to the date above is copyrighted Sun  
Microsystems and the contributing authors."
>
> When can this be put into place?

If the people here agree with the above (not sure of the clause  
excepting the PDL and how much bureaucracy that would create, nor if  
such "checking" is needed; I have in mind the creation of a list of  
licenses that can be used by countries that can't use the PDL), then  
the CC could vote this week.
>
> Frank

best
Louis

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[Frank Peters-2]

Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:

> Hi,
> On 2007-04-04, at 06:10 , Frank Peters wrote:
>
>> Andre Schnabel wrote:
>>
>>>> So, I'd be happy with posting something like, "Content posted after
>>>> [date] is licensed in accordance with OpenOffice.org's license
>>>> policy, which can be found at
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/license.html.  Content posted prior to
>>>> this date is copyrighted Sun Microsystems and the contributing
>>>> authors."
>>> I'd rather would not extend the OOo website licensing terms to the
>>> wiki - see Jean's and DougT's comments.  I second DougT - I'd love to
>>> see the content under Public Domain. But we need to accept other
>>> (free) licenses. So could we rephrase:
>>> "Content posted after [date] is Public Domain as long as there is no
>>> explicit license notice at a single wiki page. Content posted prior
>>> to this date is copyrighted Sun Microsystems and the contributing
>>> authors."
>>> Ok - someone needs to make English from that - and we need some
>>> clause for countries where PD is not possible.
>>
>> I would second Andre in allowing wiki pages to specify a license
>> and have a default license for pages that do not specify the their
>> license.
>
> That seems good to me, too...  But I'd rather not allow for even the
> possibility of proprietary licenses on the wiki, which the wording
> suggested seems to permit, as does our current wording. Ie, I want open
> licenses.

There is some stuff in, I think, Creative Commons licenses that
Jean would like to put on the wiki. Jean?

> Thus,
>
> "Content posted after [date] is Public Domain except where otherwise
> noted, in which case copyright holders may use the Public Document
> License (PDL), as noted in the License page of OpenOffice.org,
> http://www.openoffice.org/license.html. (Residents of countries that do
> not accept the provisions of the PDL may use an equivalent license,
> though we ask that you check with the Community Council beforehand.)
> Content posted prior to the date above is copyrighted Sun Microsystems
> and the contributing authors."
>>
>> When can this be put into place?
>
> If the people here agree with the above (not sure of the clause
> excepting the PDL and how much bureaucracy that would create, nor if
> such "checking" is needed; I have in mind the creation of a list of
> licenses that can be used by countries that can't use the PDL), then the
> CC could vote this week.

Great, thanks
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...

[G. Roderick Singleton-2]

On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 08:52 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> marbux wrote:
> > +1. Copyrighted material can be parked on another site and linked from
> > the wiki.
>
> Quite true, and that's more or less the situation we have now
> with the Docs website: it links to material that for various
> reasons can't go on the OOo website itself.
>

Search just plain sucks. See
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=52046

In spite of the open issue, nothing has improved.

> Unfortunately, that's not the best solution for the users, unless
> it's possible to set up a search on the wiki (or the Docs
> website) that would include the linked material.

See above

>
> The problems I'm trying to help solve are twofold: (1) users
> trying to find answers quickly and easily in the mass of
> available info; (2) users being able to access all that info on
> the web if they want to, in addition to being able to download it
> in PDF or ODT. Putting copyright material on another site in HTML
> or wiki form solves (2), but it doesn't solve (1).

See above.

>
> If there is a better, or more workable, way to solve (1) I would
> be delighted to learn about it. I know there are lots of tools
> and methods available that I am unaware of, and more appearing
> all the time.
>
Me too.
--
G. Roderick Singleton <grsingleton@...>
OpenOffice.org