Hi Dennis, On Jan 30, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Pedro and Jürgen, > > It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. > > There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink > into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well. It is satisfying, it is > credible to us, and it can be a mistake. Facts are more nuanced than > portrayed. It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken > there. There are many places where such matters can be discussed without > embroiling the project. > > A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated > software here first. I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA > operates. Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement > without lawsuits at > <https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx>. My main > point is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone > for whom license management is a serious concern. Also, the BSA does not > pursue individuals using software separate from and outside of their > employment. > > It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO > licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no > cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO > site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate > successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act > as a contribution to the public interest. > > The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what > attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not > known what the actual discussion was at > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser>. > The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current > version of the page at <http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>. > (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still unanswered question from > the list is about whose voice this statement is made in. The footnote says > it is not the voice of the ASF. You will find some more discussion on private@oo.a.o where you may be resubscribed to soon. > > It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say > about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are > honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects. The only ASF compliance > concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how > the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all > governing licenses. That is more appropriately presented in material > addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors. The only > advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to > observe the licenses that apply. And that interested parties should look > elsewhere for legal advice and assurances. Exactly - so what the project writes here is NOT ASF policy unless we want to be more general and find a way to have it be an opinion of many. > > - Dennis > > PS: Other circumstances had me learn, recently, that the reason the Chair of > the PMC is an Officer of the Foundation is for important legal purposes with > regard to the nature of the Foundation and the umbrella it creates for > projects under its auspices. Some of the legal considerations and their > honoring are viewed as extending to the PMC as well and the Chair is > accountable to the Foundation for that. The PMC, in addition to its > attention on the direction of the project is also governed by some legal > requirements. I know that's pretty abstract, it is for me too. I expect > that Chairs get on-the-job training in such matters. I surmise that the > charge to operate in the public interest and within the parameters the > Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is paramount. The board will lean in as needed, but better to go the other way and seek clarity. I am taking it as a sign of this project's maturity within Apache that this is a quiet discussion. Let's keep it to the frequency of one reply per person per day. If anyone wishes to propose other language for these pages then we should discuss it - slowly and carefully. I agree with Jürgen that we should be playing our game. The game is an Apache OpenOffice and an ASF game. It is neither an OpenOffice.org nor is it a TDF game. Personally I am at Apache for the permissive license, others have their reasons. That they are here is enough for me. Regards, Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 > To: OOo Apache > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" > > [ ... ] > > I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive > and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for > certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read > licenses anyways :). > > I honestly don't think having a "compliance costs" page will make > a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such > things through a legal process, I guess that can't do any harm. > > Regards, > > Pedro. > > [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
