On 09/16/2012 03:24 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> wrote:
TJ Frazier wrote:
As a long-time volunteer with ODFA (formerly OOA), I can promise that we
(AOO) can get documents from them. The cost of this option is (1) a
legal review and approval of CC-BY v3; (2) some storage (WG v3.2 is 15.5
MB, so call it 100 or 200 MB per version, probably as .odt and .pdf
files on the Mwiki. The download volume/bandwidth has been too low to
cause any problems, but I have no stats); and (3) a little politeness.
Point (1), like all legal reviews, sounds scary, but it could be quite easy:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a says
---
For the purposes of being a dependency to an Apache product, which licenses
are considered to be similar in terms to the Apache License 2.0?
Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache products:
...
Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
---
Now, besides the fact that the license is called "CC-A" instead of "CC-BY"
(but the name and link make it clear it's CC-BY), and the fact that the link
is to version 2.5 and not version 3.0, Point (1) should already be done.
What's needed is just to open a LEGAL JIRA issue like
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117
but merely asking whether CC-BY 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
can be considered "Category A" and added to / mentioned in
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
Actually, I did this last August (2011) to help Jean Weber try to get
the doc project started. You can see the JIRA issue here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-96
See also the related discussion on the legal-discuss.
The conclusion was that CC-BY-3.0 had an anti-DRM clause that
prevented it from being considered fully category-a.
But that shouldn't prevent us from seeking a narrower permission for
hosting on our website. But note that hosting might have additional
Infra considerations in terms of bandwidth, etc. Remember, even if we
have stuff as category-a we're not supposed to be distributing it
outside of a release and outside of approved mirrors. Pointing users
to large files of any kind on the website will be a problem.
So this leads to questions:
1) Within the AOO project can we do substantive work on material that
is not ALv2?
This is my question also.
2) If so, can we include this work in an official release?
3) If not in a release, can we host such materials on Apache-owned websites?
And another question. Are User Guides considered part of a release?
I fully understand the need for quality User Guides apart from simpler
documentation scenarios, I'm just confused over some of these licensing
issues, and how they affect what we determine/say is the "official" User
Guide.
My guess is we would have a lot less trouble if we either started new
doc from scratch under ALv2, or did this work via ODFA, e..g, outside
of Apache. Mixing the two will be a headache.
-Rob
Regards,
Andrea.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
being filled. The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
let the beautiful stuff out."
-- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"
