On 11/17/13 9:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > Hi Juergen; > > I am just catching up with some old mail but thank you for the > interesting report. > > Just as an external observer and reminding that IANAL, the LO/TDF > doesn't seem to be complying with the Apache License section 4 > subsection (d) and is misinterpreting on purpose subsection (b). > > The so-called "rebasing" was obfuscated on purpose, probably with some > level of paranoia, to avoid making clear which code is under an Apache > License and which is not. It was not surprising to find that at least > one CWS, not included in AOO, was "relicensed" and mixed with other > arbitrary license swapping.
I personally share your views and it makes me sad to see that so called open source advocates tolerate and support such things. Where as individuals might not have interest in a clear and clean code base with a proper and appropriate licensing. But I would have expected that companies who are involved take it more serious. I am still liking the open source idea and I believe it is good to reuse code that is already implemented. But I also like the idea of upstream changes to the original code base because it is the only way how open source can work. > > Using public funding for opensource projects is great but it involves > all the parties working responsibly. I just think that given the > situation of uncertainty of the results and the general lack of > collaboration from one group it just doesn't make sense for both > projects to work together. the first project was in the special situation that OpenOffice was in it's transition to Apache and that some people tried hard to claim that OpenOffice is dead and LO is the new and shining successor. Means the situation at this time was not clear and the project constraints were probably not defined detailed enough. I think it was not easy and the involved people tried their best. I think future projects can make it better and can ensure that the changes are integrated in the lowest common code base. And I disagree and think that collaboration make a lot of sense because both projects can benefit from even more developers and wasting time with useless merging of code is stupid. > > It's not all bad though: While LibreOffice seems to be a place to run > experiments, AOO is setting the new standards that get widely adopted. well if we take the license issue out and look on the LO project only I like a lot of things that work quite well. And I would love to see many of them in place at Apache and AOO as well. Juergen > > Just my opinion though ... I am always glad to be proved wrong. > > Pedro. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
