On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote: > >> 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. >> > > The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of > the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is that > we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking is why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known for compliance risks), which GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users avoid? S.
