I think the enumeration provided by Rob below is more grounded and conditional than the web page itself.
For me, the page itself is simply propaganda, as appealing as it is for those with an ideological commitment to open-source development. Whatever the facts it is based on, however true they are, it lacks reality and context and, by omission, exaggerates how much this impacts anyone. For example, it suggests, absent context, that Linux is a bad proposition because of the GPL. Likewise GNU Tools and the LAMP stack (not to mention issues for on-line services with some GPL3 variants). That leaves what? FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and other software based on permissive licenses. I don't think there are many here who are satisfied with that conclusion and those concerns, while happily running Debian/Ubuntu and other distributions as well as OpenSolaris, etc. I can certainly understand why folks like Bradley Kuhn and those who have learned of his objections are dismayed over this. Note that Kuhn presents the "Compliance Costs" openoffice.org page as being from "the Apache web site" and he uses it to suggest that the ASF has become copy-left hostile. Identification of the page with the ASF is a fact, too, if one looks at who hosts the site and owns the domain name. It fits his agenda to point that out (and not point out that node.js is under a permissive license). One can also see, then, how this situation elevated onto the legal-discuss list. In any case, my attention is going to be on Apache OpenOffice as an affirmative offering of value, not contrast with suggested negatives. AOO appeals to those who consider adoption of AOO in support of their personal and office productivity needs. They and their organizations are supported by demonstrating how AOO can be relied upon as dependable and useful in their actual circumstances. I think that is the most important way to establish that an open-source project has delivered something tangible and practical. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:58 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; <orc...@apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> 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. The page boils down to saying the following: 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 3) There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle path and avoid much of this risk. The Apache License is one example. 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further into using OpenOffice. I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us to say. Regards, -Rob > > 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. > > 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. > > - 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. > > > -----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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
