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

Hi :slight_smile:
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 :slight_smile:

+1 for me too.
--Dan

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.

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).

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...

Sure, go ahead. --Jean

Hi Jean,

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? :wink:

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

Hi Jean,

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. :smiley:

Hi :slight_smile:
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 :slight_smile:

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

Hi :slight_smile:
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 :slight_smile:

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

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

Given that I'm proposing a change to put new docs into the license preferred by LO, I don't see the point in taking up the Board's time. I think Tom covered this well in his note. But I see you have already contacted them...

--Jean

I should clarify a few points in my proposal.

By "new documents" I do not mean new editions of existing docs (eg the updates from 3.3 to 3.4). I mean docs that are "written from scratch".

Having a dual license given in the user guide template does not *require* new docs (that are not part of a user guide) to have both licenses applied. For example, the author of a NEW document (not part of a user guide) about LibreOffice could choose to delete the Apache license.

In fact, AFAIK there is no requirement for such docs to be based on the user guide template The template's main value is in providing a consistent look-and-feel (styles, colours, layout) and its use is therefore encouraged for all LO docs long enough to need pages for title, copyright, ToC. The template also provides a convenient boilerplate of text for the copyright page. But that page can be modified to fit the requirements of docs that are not part of the user guide set.

Of course that brings up the question of what is a user guide versus some other document. Are stand-alone docs also "user guides"? In one sense, yes, anything written to support or guide users could be considered a user guide; but I don't use that term to describe standalone docs written by individuals and contributed to the project. I say this just to make it clear what *I* am talking about, not to try to impose my terminology choice on the rest of you. :slight_smile:

--Jean

Hi Dennis,

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.)

Thank you for specifying that. I admit that my mind was rather more focussing on the possibility that the "new" (and I share Jean's understanding of the same meaning of "new") LibreOffice documents, if they were rebranded as AOOo documentation under AL2 as part of the AOOo, would then constitute a contribution under that project and thus require iCLAs.

Alex

I'm not quite clear what Alex is observing about rebranding of the New documents Jean is talking about. Let's break it down into parts.

If someone who did not hold the copyright made a derivative work of those documents to rebrand them for Apache OpenOffice, change screen shots, etc., they would need to honor the original license. (If it is dual licensed the creator of the derivative has a choice which license(s) to produce the derivative under.)

If someone who held the copyright on the New documents were to make the derivative, they could certainly offer a different (dual) license. By either route, even if one of the available licenses were an Apache ALv2 license, it still would not constitute a contribution to the Apache OpenOffice project. Contribution is a separate act.

Now, to have it also be contributed to an Apache project, there would have to be a contribution agreement (iCLA). Whether that is done or not is a separate decision.
An Apache project, or any other project for which the ALv2 license is compatible could also rely on the new document as a 3rd party work. In the case of an Apache project, this would not happen if the licensor objected.

A final example: If I wrote a new document that applied to LO and licensed it in a way that TDF accepts, I could also rebrand and modify it myself and offer a different license on that version. I am in a position to go farther and contribute the rebranded one to the Apache OpenOffice project too. That involves more steps, even though I have already registered an iCLA with ASF.

[I'm not going to get into how ODF Authors and others might hold joint copyright and how that complicates new licensing and especially contribution to ASF.]

- Dennis

Sorry, I forgot to sign this so it would line-wrap for folks whose email clients won't do it for them.

Also, where I say below that an iCLA is required if a contribution to an Apache project is to be made, there are other ways. A work could be contributed under an SGA (Software Grant Agreement, I think.) The SGA provides a permissive license to Apache that allows the work to be licensed as an Apache project result. It has to be done by someone entitled to do so. (That is what Oracle did in licensing OpenOffice.org to the ASF. Oracle still holds the copyright though and other licenses of the same content are not revocable. That's why the Oracle grant does not interfere with TDF continuing with LO as a derivative of the LGPLd OO.o software. Although new work from AOO under ALv2 will be third-party to TDF, etc., etc.)

Hi Dennis,

Thank you for your comprehensive answer, it certainly clears up a few things for me, even though I'm sticking to my original position of not wishing to dual-license any new work I might produce within the framework of the LibreOffice documentation project.

Whatever happens, the initial authors of a work (barring employment contracts and specific national copyright law that might apply to them) are always free to re-release their work at a later date under the terms that they choose.

Thanks again Dennis for your insight into how the AL2 works, much appreciated.

Alex