Hi Dave, all. On 12 Jan 2017 22:50, "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
Please correct the specific non Apache licenses if I get them wrong. As far as I know the sequence of events is: OpenOffice.org was originally dual licensed under LGPLv2 and SISSL (OSI approved but now retired). With v3 we changed the license to LGPLv3 only. When Oracle bought Sun, OO.o was licensed just under LGPLv3. Oracle buys Sun including OpenOffice (closed license) and the open source OpenOffice.org (GPL2). At the time of purchase, the proprietary version was called "StarOffice"; Oracle changed the name of this proprietary version to Oracle Open Office. TheDocumentFoundation forms and forks OpenOffice.org as LibreOffice under GPL2 LibreOffice was only under LGPLv3 at this point as any other choice would have required the copyright owner to relicense. At some point (not sure when) TDF requested contributions be made under both LGPLv3 and MPLv2 in the hope of future relicensing, and invited Oracle to participate. Oracle donates OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an Oracle employee following ASF policy. IBM donates OpenSymphony to the ASF relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an IBM employee following ASF policy. The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony code. Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all the source as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady although permitted. In effect this prevents LO updates from being contributed back to AOO. I doubt TDF could have integrated all the contributions to LO it received under LGPLv3 and MPLv2 any other way. That is the sequence. One could ask on LO lists why they did this, but all we know here is what happens here. Some say it is more fun to develop LO. Others like Patricia and I like the benefits of consuming AL2 software as opposed to GPL. Certainly TDF likes to consume AL2 software. The license a community uses is an expression of its outlook and norms. Apache and TDF have differing outlooks (although they have remarkably similar governance) so it's no surprise their license choices differ as well. I'd hesitate to declare either Apache or TDF's choices as better for everything and consequently have advocated for both at various times. Cheers, S. (speaking here only as an AOO community member) Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > Thanks for the correction. > >> On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote: >> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html >> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache >> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011, >> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010. >> >> An article about this: >> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with -openoffice-update/ >> >> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta: >>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia >>> >>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave <nore...@tasit.net>: >>> >>>>> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>>>>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >>>>>> merged in OpenOffice. >>>>> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier >>>>> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have >>>>> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. >>>> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: >>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ >>>> >>>> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 >>>> under the same license. >>>> >>>> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the >>>> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. >>>> >>>> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of >>>> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked >>>> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. >>>> >>>> Please let's not try to rewrite history. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to >>>> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will >>>> never be read. >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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
