Licensing for NEW documents

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
54 messages Options
Next » 123
Jean Weber Jean Weber
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Licensing for NEW documents

The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).

NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).

If this group agrees, or if there are no objections, I will change the template. Any new docs created from the template would then show the new license info.

Note 1: Changing copyright (license) info in the template will not change it in existing docs, even when they are updated to a new template. Styles and footers change, but existing text in the body of the docs does not.

Note 2: We can't change the license on existing docs without contacting the original contributors and getting their agreement. However, that doesn't prevent us from licensing new docs differently.

--Jean

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Tom Tom
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Hi :)
A big
+1
to that!  It might help this team be the upstream team which could be advantageous.  It would also be good to know that you guys were producing things that could easily be useful to our Apaches buddies.  The change would allow people to modify and redistribute wouldn't it?
Regards from
Tom :)

--- On Fri, 25/11/11, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Jean Weber <[hidden email]>
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Licensing for NEW documents
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Date: Friday, 25 November, 2011, 19:01

The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).

NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).

If this group agrees, or if there are no objections, I will change the template. Any new docs created from the template would then show the new license info.

Note 1: Changing copyright (license) info in the template will not change it in existing docs, even when they are updated to a new template. Styles and footers change, but existing text in the body of the docs does not.

Note 2: We can't change the license on existing docs without contacting the original contributors and getting their agreement. However, that doesn't prevent us from licensing new docs differently.

--Jean

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Dan Lewis Dan Lewis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

+1 for me too.
--Dan

On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 19:16 +0000, Tom Davies wrote:

> Hi :)
> A big
> +1
> to that!  It might help this team be the upstream team which could be advantageous.  It would also be good to know that you guys were producing things that could easily be useful to our Apaches buddies.  The change would allow people to modify and redistribute wouldn't it?
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>
> --- On Fri, 25/11/11, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> From: Jean Weber <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Licensing for NEW documents
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Friday, 25 November, 2011, 19:01
>
> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).
>
> If this group agrees, or if there are no objections, I will change the template. Any new docs created from the template would then show the new license info.
>
> Note 1: Changing copyright (license) info in the template will not change it in existing docs, even when they are updated to a new template. Styles and footers change, but existing text in the body of the docs does not.
>
> Note 2: We can't change the license on existing docs without contacting the original contributors and getting their agreement. However, that doesn't prevent us from licensing new docs differently.
>
> --Jean
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>
>




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Jay Lozier Jay Lozier
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Jean Weber
On 11/25/2011 02:01 PM, Jean Weber wrote:

> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).
>
> If this group agrees, or if there are no objections, I will change the template. Any new docs created from the template would then show the new license info.
>
> Note 1: Changing copyright (license) info in the template will not change it in existing docs, even when they are updated to a new template. Styles and footers change, but existing text in the body of the docs does not.
>
> Note 2: We can't change the license on existing docs without contacting the original contributors and getting their agreement. However, that doesn't prevent us from licensing new docs differently.
>
> --Jean
>
I assume the practical differences between GPL and Apache for the users
and contributors are trivial, practically non-existent. The main item is
that derivative works are allowed with proper attribution.

I do not see any real issue with the change.

--
Jay Lozier
[hidden email]


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

David Nelson David Nelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Jean Weber
Hi Jean,

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).
>
> If this group agrees, or if there are no objections, I will change the template. Any new docs created from the template would then show the new license info.
>
> Note 1: Changing copyright (license) info in the template will not change it in existing docs, even when they are updated to a new template. Styles and footers change, but existing text in the body of the docs does not.
>
> Note 2: We can't change the license on existing docs without contacting the original contributors and getting their agreement. However, that doesn't prevent us from licensing new docs differently.

The thought comes to me that maybe it would be a good idea to consult
the BoD about this question? I'm fairly certain they'll have input to
offer about licensing issues...

--
David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jean Weber Jean Weber
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 21:54, David Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Jean,
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>>
>> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).
>>
>> If this group agrees, or if there are no objections, I will change the template. Any new docs created from the template would then show the new license info.
>>
>> Note 1: Changing copyright (license) info in the template will not change it in existing docs, even when they are updated to a new template. Styles and footers change, but existing text in the body of the docs does not.
>>
>> Note 2: We can't change the license on existing docs without contacting the original contributors and getting their agreement. However, that doesn't prevent us from licensing new docs differently.
>
> The thought comes to me that maybe it would be a good idea to consult
> the BoD about this question? I'm fairly certain they'll have input to
> offer about licensing issues...
>
> --
> David Nelson


Sure, go ahead. --Jean

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

David Nelson David Nelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Hi Jean,

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sure, go ahead. --Jean

So did you actually make the changes to the template as such? Since
it's your idea to change the licensing, do you think it would be more
efficient if *you* contacted the BoD? ;-)

--
David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jean Weber Jean Weber
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 22:10, David Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Jean,
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Sure, go ahead. --Jean
>
> So did you actually make the changes to the template as such? Since
> it's your idea to change the licensing, do you think it would be more
> efficient if *you* contacted the BoD? ;-)
>
> --
> David Nelson


I've made no changes, only started a discussion. If someone wants to
contact the BoD, that's fine with me. But I'm not going to. Efficiency
be damned. These days I'm only doing stuff I want to do, which
includes tossing out ideas as they occur to me.

--Jean

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

David Nelson David Nelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Hi Jean,

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Efficiency
> be damned. These days I'm only doing stuff I want to do, which
> includes tossing out ideas as they occur to me.

Perfectly understandable. :-D

--
David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Tom Tom
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Jean Weber
Hi :)
I think it's probably better to avoid contacting the BoD.  They are supposed to be representing us.  This is NOT meant to be a top-down organisation.  It's a grass-roots up (or bottoms-up, if you have a sherry near to hand).  We keep them informed of what we are doing. 

The only reason for asking their permission is if this group feels uncomfortable with the decision and wants to ask the wider membership.  Typically that would be if we were doing something outrageous or if the group were clearly divided about which way to go with this.  If we were breaking guidelines or rules of the organisation or spending their money then those might be other reasons for asking the BoD. 

That's not what we have here.  What we do have is a clearly unanimous decision taken by the people who are best informed about the nitty-gritty and background of this issue. 

We do not need to create extra work for people that may be fairly clueless about this area or who have expressed disinterest by not joining the group.  We should just take responsibility for making sensible decisions that don't affect the wider community at all.

I say just get on with the doing what we have already agreed on. 
Just my 2cents
Regards from
Tom :)


--- On Sat, 26/11/11, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Jean Weber <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Licensing for NEW documents
To: [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, 26 November, 2011, 12:28

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 22:10, David Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Jean,
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Sure, go ahead. --Jean
>
> So did you actually make the changes to the template as such? Since
> it's your idea to change the licensing, do you think it would be more
> efficient if *you* contacted the BoD? ;-)
>
> --
> David Nelson


I've made no changes, only started a discussion. If someone wants to
contact the BoD, that's fine with me. But I'm not going to. Efficiency
be damned. These days I'm only doing stuff I want to do, which
includes tossing out ideas as they occur to me.

--Jean

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Alex Thurgood Alex Thurgood
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Jean Weber
Le 25/11/11 20:01, Jean Weber a écrit :

Hi Jean,

> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).

The AL2 would require all documentation contributors to sign a
contributor license agreement :

http://www.apache.org/licenses/

Contributor License Agreements

The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation
to the Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via postal mail, fax
or email) an Individual Contributor License Agreement (CLA) [ PDF form
]. The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the terms under
which intellectual property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby
allow us to defend the project should there be a legal dispute regarding
the software at some future time. A signed CLA is required to be on file
before an individual is given commit rights to an ASF project.


There are more than subtle differences between the AL2 and CC-BY-SA.
Whilst I may not be fully satisfied with the CC-BY-SA license, it
appeals to me far more than AL2.


Personally, I have no such intention of signing an agreement of the AL2
type, or anything like it again (if I can possibly avoid it), I'm afraid
it reminds me too much of the jumps and hoops you had to go through with
Sun.


So, -1 for me, I'm afraid.


Alex




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Tom Tom
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Hi :)
Ouch!  Errr, could it be argued that we are just using their licence without actually being an ASF project and therefore the "contributor" to their project is the Team rather than individuals within the team?  As individuals you are not contributing to the ASF OOo.  It's the documentation team that is the contributor?

Regards from
Tom :)


--- On Sat, 26/11/11, Alexander Thurgood <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Alexander Thurgood <[hidden email]>
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
To: [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, 26 November, 2011, 14:16

Le 25/11/11 20:01, Jean Weber a écrit :

Hi Jean,

> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).

The AL2 would require all documentation contributors to sign a
contributor license agreement :

http://www.apache.org/licenses/

Contributor License Agreements

The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation
to the Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via postal mail, fax
or email) an Individual Contributor License Agreement (CLA) [ PDF form
]. The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the terms under
which intellectual property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby
allow us to defend the project should there be a legal dispute regarding
the software at some future time. A signed CLA is required to be on file
before an individual is given commit rights to an ASF project.


There are more than subtle differences between the AL2 and CC-BY-SA.
Whilst I may not be fully satisfied with the CC-BY-SA license, it
appeals to me far more than AL2.


Personally, I have no such intention of signing an agreement of the AL2
type, or anything like it again (if I can possibly avoid it), I'm afraid
it reminds me too much of the jumps and hoops you had to go through with
Sun.


So, -1 for me, I'm afraid.


Alex




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Tom Tom
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Jean Weber
Hi :)
Ok, the human-readable explanation claims that individuals within an external organisation would have to each sign their own individual CLA's with ASF.  However the legalese in the contract doesn't seem to insist on that at all
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

 1. Definitions.

      "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
      authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement
      with the Foundation. For legal entities, the entity making a
      Contribution and all other entities that control, are controlled by,
      or are under common control with that entity are considered to be a
      single Contributor.

In our case the copyright holder is TDF.  Well at the moment not TDF but the German community (or is it French?) that is the legally registered organisation that is looking after TDF assets until TDF is fully registered.

I don't have a specialism in copyright or contracts or anything and don't have any qualifications in law for even a single country so i am aware there are a lot of implications and things that i am completely unaware of.  Also i know Alex does have some expertise in exactly the right area although he is not officially employed as an expert and is only giving us the benefit of his opinion for us to weigh-up.

Regards from
Tom :)


--- On Sat, 26/11/11, Alexander Thurgood <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Alexander Thurgood <[hidden email]>
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
To: [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, 26 November, 2011, 14:16

Le 25/11/11 20:01, Jean Weber a écrit :

Hi Jean,

> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).

The AL2 would require all documentation contributors to sign a
contributor license agreement :

http://www.apache.org/licenses/

Contributor License Agreements

The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation
to the Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via postal mail, fax
or email) an Individual Contributor License Agreement (CLA) [ PDF form
]. The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the terms under
which intellectual property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby
allow us to defend the project should there be a legal dispute regarding
the software at some future time. A signed CLA is required to be on file
before an individual is given commit rights to an ASF project.


There are more than subtle differences between the AL2 and CC-BY-SA.
Whilst I may not be fully satisfied with the CC-BY-SA license, it
appeals to me far more than AL2.


Personally, I have no such intention of signing an agreement of the AL2
type, or anything like it again (if I can possibly avoid it), I'm afraid
it reminds me too much of the jumps and hoops you had to go through with
Sun.


So, -1 for me, I'm afraid.


Alex




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Alex Thurgood Alex Thurgood
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Le 26/11/11 15:50, Tom Davies a écrit :

Hi Tom,


>
> In our case the copyright holder is TDF.  Well at the moment not TDF but the German community (or is it French?) that is the legally registered organisation that is looking after TDF assets until TDF is fully registered.
>

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on which half of the glass you
see as full ;-)), the copyright holder is each individual author, and
not TDF (that is precisely why there is no copyright assignment in any
part of the LibreOffice project.

If a contributor wishes to have his/her contribution accepted within the
LibreOffice project then they have to do so under the LGLP3+/MPL+ for
code, or CC-BY-SA for anything else, unless there are other specific
reasons for this not being the case (which will always raise the
question as to whether it is really accepted or not), as for example,
with some older code that has been revamped but must be kept currently
under LGPL2.

So TDF (or even the German foundation currently running things while it
is being set up) is not the owner of the documentation produced.

The Documentation Project is not a legal entity in the sense of the word
"organisation" referred to in the AL2 license - it has no legal remit of
representation for copyright assignments.

> I don't have a specialism in copyright or contracts or anything and don't have any qualifications in law for even a single country so i am aware there are a lot of implications and things that i am completely unaware of.  Also i know Alex does have some expertise in exactly the right area although he is not officially employed as an expert and is only giving us the benefit of his opinion for us to weigh-up.


Indeed, I'm not (to my knowledge) employed by any entity involved in
this project (thankfully), which allows me to be have an unfettered
opinion. I have been known as an "électron libre" in the past, and for
the most part, have managed to stay that way ;-)

I have already stated on the Apache OOo list that I would not allow for
the licences of any of my previous documentation contributions to be
changed (since at one stage, some people were touting an "automatic, by
default change" - fortunately, the Apache mentors of the project are
crucially aware of doing this correctly when it comes to the legal
issues). What the final result will be remains to be seen - I fear a
severely trimmed OOo, but I am also assuming that the AOOo project will
in due course fill those gaps.

Of course, my position with regard to AL2 is my own, and each person in
this documentation project must decide in their own hearts/minds, how
they wish to act. I am not here to sway them in one way or another on
that decision. I merely wanted to point out the oversimplification that
Jean made with regard to the word "published". This oversimplification
could lead people to make a decision with regard to the licensing of
their works, without understanding all of the ramifications behind it.


Now, please excuse my pedantry, and on with the debate !!

Alex




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Tom Tom
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Hi :)
Ahh, i thought that when the team publishes a document the individuals CC by SA licence is then re-licensed under a new CC by SA licence as the original licence allows?

Also, "Hey that's not my glass!!!  Mine was bigger!!  And it was full!!" (quote from THHGttG, thanks Zaphod :) )  I might have missed a few ! marks.  
Regards from
Tom :)

--- On Sat, 26/11/11, Alexander Thurgood <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Alexander Thurgood <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Saturday, 26 November, 2011, 15:40
> Le 26/11/11 15:50, Tom Davies a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>
> >
> > In our case the copyright holder is TDF.  Well at
> the moment not TDF but the German community (or is it
> French?) that is the legally registered organisation that is
> looking after TDF assets until TDF is fully registered.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on which half of
> the glass you
> see as full ;-)), the copyright holder is each individual
> author, and
> not TDF (that is precisely why there is no copyright
> assignment in any
> part of the LibreOffice project.
>
> If a contributor wishes to have his/her contribution
> accepted within the
> LibreOffice project then they have to do so under the
> LGLP3+/MPL+ for
> code, or CC-BY-SA for anything else, unless there are other
> specific
> reasons for this not being the case (which will always
> raise the
> question as to whether it is really accepted or not), as
> for example,
> with some older code that has been revamped but must be
> kept currently
> under LGPL2.
>
> So TDF (or even the German foundation currently running
> things while it
> is being set up) is not the owner of the documentation
> produced.
>
> The Documentation Project is not a legal entity in the
> sense of the word
> "organisation" referred to in the AL2 license - it has no
> legal remit of
> representation for copyright assignments.
>
> > I don't have a specialism in copyright or contracts or
> anything and don't have any qualifications in law for even a
> single country so i am aware there are a lot of implications
> and things that i am completely unaware of.  Also i
> know Alex does have some expertise in exactly the right area
> although he is not officially employed as an expert and is
> only giving us the benefit of his opinion for us to
> weigh-up.
>
>
> Indeed, I'm not (to my knowledge) employed by any entity
> involved in
> this project (thankfully), which allows me to be have an
> unfettered
> opinion. I have been known as an "électron libre" in the
> past, and for
> the most part, have managed to stay that way ;-)
>
> I have already stated on the Apache OOo list that I would
> not allow for
> the licences of any of my previous documentation
> contributions to be
> changed (since at one stage, some people were touting an
> "automatic, by
> default change" - fortunately, the Apache mentors of the
> project are
> crucially aware of doing this correctly when it comes to
> the legal
> issues). What the final result will be remains to be seen -
> I fear a
> severely trimmed OOo, but I am also assuming that the AOOo
> project will
> in due course fill those gaps.
>
> Of course, my position with regard to AL2 is my own, and
> each person in
> this documentation project must decide in their own
> hearts/minds, how
> they wish to act. I am not here to sway them in one way or
> another on
> that decision. I merely wanted to point out the
> oversimplification that
> Jean made with regard to the word "published". This
> oversimplification
> could lead people to make a decision with regard to the
> licensing of
> their works, without understanding all of the ramifications
> behind it.
>
>
> Now, please excuse my pedantry, and on with the debate !!
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived
> and cannot be deleted
>
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

David Nelson David Nelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Jean Weber
Hi,

Given that we're talking about such a fundamental thing as a change of
license in new LibreOffice documentation, I still reckon it would be
natural to involve the BoD in discussing the idea...

http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Licensing-for-NEW-documents-tp3536793p3536793.html

--
David Nelson


On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).
>
> If this group agrees, or if there are no objections, I will change the template. Any new docs created from the template would then show the new license info.
>
> Note 1: Changing copyright (license) info in the template will not change it in existing docs, even when they are updated to a new template. Styles and footers change, but existing text in the body of the docs does not.
>
> Note 2: We can't change the license on existing docs without contacting the original contributors and getting their agreement. However, that doesn't prevent us from licensing new docs differently.
>
> --Jean

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Dennis E. Hamilton Dennis E. Hamilton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Alex Thurgood
There is absolutely no requirement to file an iCLA with the Apache Software Foundation in order to use the Apache License v2.0.  The iCLA is for contributors to Apache projects.  It says so right in the part quoted below.  Many projects not carried out as Apache projects use the license.  (Compare with using the GPL versus contributing to a Gnu project, the latter generally requiring a license to FSF.)

The license itself suggests all that is needed to apply it to your own work.  The ODF Authors are certainly free to do so without any permission or agreement with the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt> and its Appendix.

It is also the case that, from the perspective of an Apache project that might have some keen interest in this material ( [;<), non-Apache sources of ALv2-licensed material are treated as 3rd party sources.  It just happens that the licenses are highly compatible [;<).  The CC-By-Attribution (but not Share-Alike) is also pretty compatible.  

Also, independently licensing under ALv2 is *not* the same as contributing it to Apache.  (I've registered an iCLA with ASF and I'm an Apache committer, but my independent projects that I'm licensing under ALv2 are not contributions to any Apache project.)

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Thurgood [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 06:17
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Le 25/11/11 20:01, Jean Weber a écrit :

Hi Jean,

> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).

The AL2 would require all documentation contributors to sign a
contributor license agreement :

http://www.apache.org/licenses/

Contributor License Agreements

The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation
to the Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via postal mail, fax
or email) an Individual Contributor License Agreement (CLA) [ PDF form
]. The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the terms under
which intellectual property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby
allow us to defend the project should there be a legal dispute regarding
the software at some future time. A signed CLA is required to be on file
before an individual is given commit rights to an ASF project.


There are more than subtle differences between the AL2 and CC-BY-SA.
Whilst I may not be fully satisfied with the CC-BY-SA license, it
appeals to me far more than AL2.


Personally, I have no such intention of signing an agreement of the AL2
type, or anything like it again (if I can possibly avoid it), I'm afraid
it reminds me too much of the jumps and hoops you had to go through with
Sun.


So, -1 for me, I'm afraid.


Alex




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Dennis E. Hamilton Dennis E. Hamilton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Jean Weber
I don't believe TDF is the copyright owner of the documentation Jean is referring to.

They are not works produced for hire (an important case rather specific to US Copyright Law) and without an explicit transfer of copyright to the TDF, the TDF has at most the license that is offered on the works by their authors.  

I am confident that an organization that avoids collecting CLAs of any flavor and accepts licenses to code via e-mail declarations is not getting any copyrights from anyone [;<).

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Davies [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 06:50
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Hi :)
Ok, the human-readable explanation claims that individuals within an external organisation would have to each sign their own individual CLA's with ASF.  However the legalese in the contract doesn't seem to insist on that at all
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

 1. Definitions.

      "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity
      authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement
      with the Foundation. For legal entities, the entity making a
      Contribution and all other entities that control, are controlled by,
      or are under common control with that entity are considered to be a
      single Contributor.

In our case the copyright holder is TDF.  Well at the moment not TDF but the German community (or is it French?) that is the legally registered organisation that is looking after TDF assets until TDF is fully registered.

I don't have a specialism in copyright or contracts or anything and don't have any qualifications in law for even a single country so i am aware there are a lot of implications and things that i am completely unaware of.  Also i know Alex does have some expertise in exactly the right area although he is not officially employed as an expert and is only giving us the benefit of his opinion for us to weigh-up.

Regards from
Tom :)


--- On Sat, 26/11/11, Alexander Thurgood <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Alexander Thurgood <[hidden email]>
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents
To: [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, 26 November, 2011, 14:16

Le 25/11/11 20:01, Jean Weber a écrit :

Hi Jean,

> The existing user guides are licensed the same as the OOo guides they were derived from, and the templates include this licensing information on the Copyright page (GPL and CC-BY dual license).
>
> NEW documents, however, could be licensed differently. I propose that new docs be dual licensed CC-BY-SA (preferred by LibreOffice) and Apache (so our work can be reused by Apache OpenOffice and other products).

The AL2 would require all documentation contributors to sign a
contributor license agreement :

http://www.apache.org/licenses/

Contributor License Agreements

The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation
to the Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via postal mail, fax
or email) an Individual Contributor License Agreement (CLA) [ PDF form
]. The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the terms under
which intellectual property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby
allow us to defend the project should there be a legal dispute regarding
the software at some future time. A signed CLA is required to be on file
before an individual is given commit rights to an ASF project.


There are more than subtle differences between the AL2 and CC-BY-SA.
Whilst I may not be fully satisfied with the CC-BY-SA license, it
appeals to me far more than AL2.


Personally, I have no such intention of signing an agreement of the AL2
type, or anything like it again (if I can possibly avoid it), I'm afraid
it reminds me too much of the jumps and hoops you had to go through with
Sun.


So, -1 for me, I'm afraid.


Alex




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Dennis E. Hamilton Dennis E. Hamilton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Alex Thurgood
I see that I should have read further in this thread before making my own reply to Tom.

Alex makes an important observation.

Much of the content on the OpenOffice.org web properties are under default terms of use that provide broad reuse, including relicensing.  Those terms are very much comparable to what is granted with an incoming Apache iCLA.

In addition, there is content that has its own copyright and license notices.  The ASF is very attuned to treating such material both respectfully and appropriately with respect to conditions of the licenses that have been offered.  

Furthermore, *even* if the license is compatible for inclusion in an ALv2-licensed project, it is a policy of the ASF to never include in its projects material that the license-granter does not want a project to have, even if the license allows it otherwise. That's the policy for third-party works of any origin.  Such cases have arisen.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Thurgood [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 07:41
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Le 26/11/11 15:50, Tom Davies a écrit :

Hi Tom,


>
> In our case the copyright holder is TDF.  Well at the moment not TDF but the German community (or is it French?) that is the legally registered organisation that is looking after TDF assets until TDF is fully registered.
>

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on which half of the glass you
see as full ;-)), the copyright holder is each individual author, and
not TDF (that is precisely why there is no copyright assignment in any
part of the LibreOffice project.

[ ... ]

I have already stated on the Apache OOo list that I would not allow for
the licences of any of my previous documentation contributions to be
changed (since at one stage, some people were touting an "automatic, by
default change" - fortunately, the Apache mentors of the project are
crucially aware of doing this correctly when it comes to the legal
issues). What the final result will be remains to be seen - I fear a
severely trimmed OOo, but I am also assuming that the AOOo project will
in due course fill those gaps.

Of course, my position with regard to AL2 is my own, and each person in
this documentation project must decide in their own hearts/minds, how
they wish to act. I am not here to sway them in one way or another on
that decision. I merely wanted to point out the oversimplification that
Jean made with regard to the word "published". This oversimplification
could lead people to make a decision with regard to the licensing of
their works, without understanding all of the ramifications behind it.


Now, please excuse my pedantry, and on with the debate !!

Alex




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Dennis E. Hamilton Dennis E. Hamilton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing for NEW documents

In reply to this post by Tom
A little more about Tom's terminology and I shall cease discussing more about
copyright than you probably ever wanted to know.

 - Dennis

Transfer of copyright is different than licensing a copyrighted work.  There
are exclusive rights that obtain to copyright holders.  A copyright holder can
license some or all of those rights without surrendering the copyright itself.
Absent such a license, exercise of an exclusive right by anyone but the
copyright owner constitutes infringement.  Some infringements are defensible
as "fair use" in some jurisdictions, but only judges decide whether the
defense succeeds.

In the example given by Tom below, (re-)distribution of the documents by TDF
is done under the CC-BY-SA and it is not a relicensing.  It is done under the
original license.  And communication of the same license to the recipients is
done under the original license.  Were the TDF or its contributors to make a
derivative work, the CC-BY-SA requires that derivative to satisfy the
Share-Alike requirement.  (It is a form of copyleft.)  Any added copyright
would apply to the new material and its combination with the original.  But
the original copyright is intact: You can't copyright the parts of a work that
are not your own independent creation (unless you've been transferred that
copyright).

Finally, note that the copyright holder still holds all of the original
exclusive rights and is not restricted by the license granted others.  That is
how Sun, which held the copyrights to OpenOffice.org, was able to
privately-license the code base under different terms than the LGPL that was
granted to the general public and used on the open-source OpenOffice.org
distributions.  One feature of reciprocal licenses that I favor is the fact
that the recipients have all of the same rights that the copyright owner has,
apart from the ability to transfer the copyright itself.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Davies [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 08:16
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Hi :)
Ahh, i thought that when the team publishes a document the individuals CC by
SA licence is then re-licensed under a new CC by SA licence as the original
licence allows?

Also, "Hey that's not my glass!!!  Mine was bigger!!  And it was full!!"
(quote from THHGttG, thanks Zaphod :) )  I might have missed a few ! marks.
Regards from
Tom :)

[ ... ]

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Next » 123