Copy documentation from OpenOffice.org?

I'm working on translating the Math FAQ from French to English and noticed that very good English versions of these questions exist athttps://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/Formula
<div>
Given that LibreOffice forked fromOpenOffice.orgin 2010 (prior to the vast majority of content on thatOo.orgpage), is the licensing such that we can just copy these FAQs to the LibreOffice FAQs?
- Glen

The OOo wiki to which you linked states that "Content is available
under ." [sic] (they appear to have an issues correctly rendering the
copyright/license for the page). Looking at the page source, it
appears the intended target is Wiki:Copyrights[1]. The Wiki:Copyrights
page says the following:

Hi :slight_smile:
If we did copy the worst case scenario is apparently that we get
served with a "Cease and Desist" or a "Take down" notice. Since it's
a wiki that is easy for anyone to do at very short notice. The
problem would be if we published in printed form and were then
expected to recall all published copies.

Plus the chance of being caught out is very small. Apache are not the
enemy. Most of them are us too anyway or nearly us. When OpenOffice
was owned by Oracle there was a much higher risk of them scrabbling
around trying to find any way of making any money and causing us any
trouble they possibly could. If Apache tried to take us to court or
anything then i suspect that a lot of their volunteers would be quite
unhappy or feel a conflict of loyalties. Their customers might object
even more.

If we don't copy and DO the translations ourselves and the result is
much the same as the Apache one then wouldn't that be considered a
copy anyway? Could we prove that it was sufficiently different that
it couldn't really be considered a copy?

So, i think that in this case it is worth taking the risk because the
chance of it being a problem is fairly tiny and it's very easy to fix
if there is a problem.

I'm not sure how i would feel if the Published Guides were copying
stuff. I'm not sure how that would play out. If we had to pay people
to return any copies of the published guides then it would be a
nightmare. On the other hand the risk of that happening is a LOT
lower under Apache than it was under Oracle. It's theoretical anyway
now that LO has developed so much so quickly.

As time goes on the Faq will hopefully get updated quite a bit as new
functionality gets added and hopefully will fairly soon reach a point
where it's sufficient different that it would be impossible to take
action against it.

Just my 2cents. I'm not a lawyer and haven't studied copyright law in
any country nor international law about it. I've just followed a few
threads about this this sort of thing and made some sort of sense of
it.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

I am checking on some facts related to that section of the wiki and will get back to you later today (it's early morning here in Australia).

Meanwhile, Sophie or Clayton may have some memory of the history of those pages that would be relevant to this discussion.

--Jean

Unless otherwise stated, the FAQ pages on the OOo Wiki are under the
PDL ( http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html ). The PDL license
wasn't added to every FAQ page for various reasons that made marginal
sense at the time.

The original authors of the English FAQ (structure, layout and
content) on the OOo Wiki... were mainly the Sun team (Frank, Uwe,
Martina and myself), and Jean. There was of course community
contributions as well, but that was mostly on adding information to
existing topics.

Clayton

Hi :slight_smile:
If we did copy the worst case scenario is apparently that we get
served with a "Cease and Desist" or a "Take down" notice....
...
Plus the chance of being caught out is very small...
..
If we don't copy and DO the translations ourselves and the result is
much the same as the Apache one then wouldn't that be considered a
copy anyway?
...so, i think that in this case it is worth taking the risk because the
chance of it being a problem is fairly tiny and it's very easy to fix
if there is a problem.

(IANAL either)

I think we should be careful about basing our policy on a quick cost
vs. benefit risk analysis. If a licensing question arises in the
course of our work, I propose that we try to resolve the particulars
first and then copy code/documentation/media after we've gotten our
ducks in a solid row.

Unless otherwise stated, the FAQ pages on the OOo Wiki are under the
PDL ( http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html ). The PDL license
wasn't added to every FAQ page for various reasons that made marginal
sense at the time.

Clayton -- Is there a way that the correct license could be added to
those webpages and/or a note could be put somewhere online on the
openoffice.org website that confirms the licensing? It would just
make the whole process of verifying licenses before copying content
much cleaner.

FWIW, I'm not sure that the PDL is compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 (the
license of the TDF Wiki):
https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Qubit/license

Thanks,
--R

The simple answer is probably... no. Adding an explicit license
retroactively was attempted many times (by myself and others) back
when it was all still freshly uploaded on the Wiki. This was always
met with loud protests and rollbacks (they would remove the license as
quickly as I added it) by one or two (mainly one) very vocal community
members (who weren't even documentation contributors).

The best we/I could do at the time was set explicit licenses where we
remembered (eg all the stuff under CC-By that Jean put into the Wiki),
and we put the rest of the Wiki under a general PDL license (which was
also loudly protested by the same one or two community members... no
one else cared).

The AOO community attempted to correct the licensing mess by keeping a
blanket license in place (and more visible) that serves the same
purpose as the blanket license that was in place when it was hosted by
Sun.

So, as it stands is what we have to work with (unless the AOO guys are
willing to make the changes, but I think they'll face the same issues
we did back in 2009-2011).

The PDL is a bit of an odd animal making it slightly more complicated
than it needs to be... a legacy of the Sun Microsystems days still
haunting things :stuck_out_tongue: Even if the PDL was explicitly stated on every
single Wiki page, I have a feeling you'd clash with CC-BY-SA anyway.

Clayton
PS:I have no quibble with whatever license is given to the
documentation, and anything I personally wrote is free for anyone to
use under any license.

For the French FAQ, we retrieved it from the site before it became AOO.
As I said, it comes from the SO time where the FR community of this time
began to build it (see here for the fun
http://soo.alomphega.com/faq/FAQ.HTML). Then we updated it on the OOo FR
with no license first (that was not under Sun umbrella as the FR project
was not official), then on the OOo wiki, which was PDL.
So the articles took the license of the LO wiki at the beginning of the
LO project.
I don't know for the EN content, or content in other languages.

Kind regards
Sophie

Some info, though I'm not sure what relevance it has to a decision about copying FAQs.
The English Math FAQs were definitely on the OOo wiki before the fork, probably for several years. I checked the Internet Archive from just before the fork and have taken some relevant screenshots from the FAQ pages. The first page of the English FAQ explicitly has a PDL license at the bottom, but none of the Math FAQ pages that I looked at (under the heading "Formulas") had any license at the bottom.

--Jean

Hi :slight_smile:
I think it's best to avoid any complicated licensing and just license
everything on our wiki with the same CC-by-SA that we always use.

Our Faq is likely to change quite a bit so none of this is likely to
be an issue in, say 6-12 months from now. The Faq is likely to be
sufficiently different by then. That would give them a very short
time-frame to pay-for and book court dates and serve notices.

It sounds like Apache would have trouble proving that we hadn't just
copied an ancient version that was in the public domain prior to
getting licensed. Anyway, I suspect their licensing policy is pretty
much the same as ours = more to stop any corporate organisation from
copying, relicensing and then preventing us from using our own work.

Mostly when companies do take action it's to make a profit after
paying paying legal fees and such. Apache know we could sufficiently
adapt the wiki at such short notice that they wouldn't be able to get
any monies out of us for failing to comply. We would just comply.
Sometimes people get forced into protecting their brand or image or
works even though it is going to cost them more than it's worth so we
could usefully just prevent Apache from needing to by just making sure
we update the wiki when we need to, as new functionality becomes worth
putting up there.

In the past i have argued vehemently against risking any kind of even
vaguely possible actions against us - but that has been when the
people whose copyright we might have ended up breaking have a
reputation for taking court actions as part of their routine way of
generating income. MS are likely to have a line on their Profit&Loss
statement to show income generated by legal actions. They employ tons
of lawyers to help generate such revenue. They employ PR people to
put a positive spin on it when they lose and even when they win.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
I think it's best to avoid any complicated licensing and just license
everything on our wiki with the same CC-by-SA that we always use.

Our Faq is likely to change quite a bit so none of this is likely to
be an issue in, say 6-12 months from now. The Faq is likely to be
sufficiently different by then. That would give them a very short
time-frame to pay-for and book court dates and serve notices.

It's not about court cases, it's about respecting the wishes and
expectations of people who did contribute under a specific license (or
no license).

Some info, though I'm not sure what relevance it has to a decision about copying FAQs.
The English Math FAQs were definitely on the OOo wiki before the fork, probably for
several years. I checked the Internet Archive from just before the fork and have taken
some relevant screenshots from the FAQ pages. The first page of the English FAQ
explicitly has a PDL license at the bottom, but none of the Math FAQ pages that I
looked at (under the heading "Formulas") had any license at the bottom.

My personal opinion... at the time, unless otherwise explicitly noted,
I considered everything that was added to the OOoWiki under PDL even
if it wasn't explicitly stated. The PDL was in effect on all
documentation that was created from the Sun side of the equation, and
the vast majority of the initial FAQ content was uploaded by Sun (easy
to check, usernames like fpe, ufi, mwhaller, ccornell were all Sun
contributors).

At the time... the separate OOo doc team were working under CC-BY, and
their contributions (to the Wiki and anywhere else) were clearly
marked CC-BY and should be treated as such (and this is compatible
with TDF docs today).

If we treat legacy documentation content that does not have any
explicit license as being under PDL (as much as we may not like PDL),
we should be within reason of the original expectations of the
original authors. This is compatible with the license statements on
the AOO Wiki today.

If the PDL is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA licenses in use for
LibreOffice, then maybe instead of direct copy/paste, use the content
as a starting point... rewrite and update the content to make it
relevant to LibreOffice. Does this idea still respect the original
author's intentions as well as the expectations of anyone who
contributed to the FAQs since they were added to the Wiki?

Clayton

Nope, PDL is not Public Domain License... it is the Public
Documentation license which was written by Sun Microsystems a very
long time ago. See: http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html

So basically, your assessment of PDL above is incorrect. You DO have
to give credit as detailed in the PDL.

Clayton

Hi :slight_smile:
Ahhh, i didn't realise PDL=Public Domain License! i think that makes
it easier doesn't it?

"No permission whatsoever is needed to copy or use public domain
works. Public domain material is available for anyone to use for any
purpose, private and commercial. Public domain works can serve as the
foundation for new creative works. Public domain works can also be
copied and distributed without any permission or paying royalties"

and this
http://copyright.universityofcalifornia.edu/publicdomain.html

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Public_domain

So, as long as we DON'T give any credit to the original sources and
authors then we are well within the PDL. If we DO mention the
source(s) then we are giving them more respect than they asked for. I
can't really imagine anyone taking us to court over that, or even
grumbling about it!
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
That sounds more likely. In my last post i thought you had all gone
mad or something. Ok, so i haven't read the PDL but i still see this
as more of a risk-analysis problem than a "must read all the fine
print" legal issue. Also i suspect that the other authors were much
the same attitude as you & me = keen for it to reach as wide an
audience as possible and not particularly worried about much else.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Tom, what you "suspect" about the authors' intentions, and your
opinion that it's a risk-analysis issue rather than a legal one, is
not good enough. Whether you are correct or not, ignoring the
legalities is not acceptable behaviour as far as The Document
Foundation is concerned.

I suggest you stop offering sweeping opinions on legal topics that
even you admit you know little or nothing about.

--Jean

It's not about court cases, it's about respecting the wishes and
expectations of people who did contribute under a specific license (or
no license).

Totally agree with Clayton about that.

If we treat legacy documentation content that does not have any
explicit license as being under PDL (as much as we may not like PDL),
we should be within reason of the original expectations of the
original authors. This is compatible with the license statements on
the AOO Wiki today.

If the PDL is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA licenses in use for
LibreOffice, then maybe instead of direct copy/paste, use the content
as a starting point... rewrite and update the content to make it
relevant to LibreOffice. Does this idea still respect the original
author's intentions as well as the expectations of anyone who
contributed to the FAQs since they were added to the Wiki?

I don't know whether PDL is compatiable with CC-BY-SA. Whether it is
or not, I think Clayton's suggestion is best: instead of directly
copying the content on the AOO wiki, use it as a starting point and
rewrite and update it as needed for LO. That also has the advantage of
forcing us to review the material to make sure it's up to date for LO.

--Jean

Tom, as I said before it's not about legal action, court cases, and
cease and desist orders... it's about respecting the wishes and rights
of everyone involved.

Take some time to read the CC-BY and PDL (they are not lengthy
documents). Try to understand what they mean, what they protect, and
what impact that has here.

Basically, it will not progress the way you're suggesting. If we
glibly ignore the licenses that the work, be it documentation or
source code, is created with just because we "think" someone won't
object (it doesn't matter what form that objection takes) you
undermine the trust that people have in the project.

Clayton

Tom wrote:

So can you back that up by finding me even 1 original author who objects enough that they would be able to get Apache to file a suit against us and serve us with a "Take down" or "Cease and

desist" notice which we would find difficult to action within a reasonable time-frame?

The copyright holder is who would file the DMCA take down notice, "Cease and Desist" notice, etc. That may, but need not be the author of the content.

I have seen instances where an author would happilly share content for other uses, with no royalty payment, attribution, or anything of that nature required, but the executor of their estate has had a very different approach, requiring hefty royalties, co-author attribution, and other things, even when the contributed content was but one paragraph in a 5,000 page tome.

TDF is located in Germany, The Apache Software Foundation is located in the United States, and contributors to both projects, and their predecessor, OOo are located all over the globe. As such, one can either do the right thing, which is adhere to the license the content is distributed under, or waste time, effort, energy, and money, being subject to actual, or potential legal issues, arising from any of the countries that the contributor resides in, is a citizen of, or otherwise under the legal jurisdiction of.

Pondering on how Canon Law of the Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Of Christ, applies in a Japanese court, interpreting a license crafted in the United States, based upon a treaty signed in South America, is the type of mess that you are trying to get the TDF involved in, by ignoring the license(s) that the content was originally created and distributed under.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

jonathon

I agree with Jean. I will continue work on translating the French FAQs, using the corresponding AOO English versions to help me understand context when I have difficulty with the French.

- Glen

Hi :slight_smile:
Good point. So can you back that up by finding me even 1 original
author who objects enough that they would be able to get Apache to
file a suit against us and serve us with a "Take down" or "Cease and
desist" notice which we would find difficult to action within a
reasonable time-frame?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile: