Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 83759
python-bridge.html: license?
Last modified: 2007-12-19 09:02:11 UTC
Hi, as Issue 63846 removed python-bridge.html from the source tree and that documentation is requested by users, though, I'd like to package it seperately by downloading the zip offered on http://udk.openoffice.org/python/python-bridge.html and packaging it into a python-uno-doc or somesuch. It doesn't contain *any* license info, though, so per copyright law it's "all right reserved" so you can't even distibute it. Is that intended? Or was/is it LGPL? Some other license? Regards, Rene
Hi Kay, the mentioned python-bridge document should have the same license as all the other stuff on udk.openoffice.org. I think, it is LGPL. How would I need to modify the page to reflect the license correctly ? Bye, Jörg
Hi Joerg! just talked with Frank Peters about that, and learned that documentation on OOo is in general made available under PDL (Public Documentation License, see http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), though there is no principal license yet. Means that you may want to put your documentation explicitly under PDL, e.g. by adding a note to the top of the page, or in case you move it to the Uno wiki, by including the PDL license note template ("{{PDL1}}". Kay
license note has been added to documentation
Verified.
Closing ...
This unfortunately means I can't ship them (except in non-free) because the PDL is not free. oh, well... Thanks for clarification, though...
->Rene: I am surprised, does that mean all the documentation on OOo is unavailable for you (Debian)?
kr: the PDL is non-free. So anything PDLed can't be shipped Debian main (Debian non-free maybe, but I don't maintain non-free packages per principle) and needs to be removed if present.... (I looked for the PDLs freeness after I learned in this issue that the pyuno doc is PDL; didn't yet check for occurances of the PDL in OOos source tree....) Reasons for the PDL being non-free can be given, I need to look for the URL, though first.
->Rene: I am still surprised, AFAIK the the whole help content is under PDL etc. And I am sure that at least for this issue this was not intended by JBU. Could you please provide some reasoning why this is, I than can talk to Frank Peters etc. to find out if this really was intended ....
kr: thankfully the helpcontent (judging from the license headers on the xhp, random picks) is LGPL. I'll look for the URL again and then tell you.
kr: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00236.html. Daniel Carrera The PDL forces redistribution. Think of someone just modifying the document just for it's own purpose (which might not make sense in the original one). It also fails the "Desert Island"and "Dissident" tests (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html) (also note that the Open Source Definition basically is the DFSG)
hmm. hit enter too fast. "Daniel Carrera asked on debian-legal about that a bit less than 2 years ago"