On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote: > Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39) >> >> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote: >> >>> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) >>>> >>>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is >>>> not an appropriate choice in this situation? >>>> >>> >>> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license >>> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. >>> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with >>> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
The Apache model is more than just a license - it's a complete system developed around a community led development philosophy. No part can be easily replaced. >> I'm not an expert in this but is seems to me that since you can derive a >> copy left licensed product from an Apache licensed product but not the >> other >> way round, it is in fact logical to start with Apache if both are to be >> considered. (With GPLv3) > No, those people will not join that project under Apache. Volunteers make choices. Developers come and go. In the end, we have to accept this. All that we can ask for is alignment and understanding, and a clean separation of concerns. Complete and sound systems are well known and understood for the GPL. IMO creating a complete and sound system around the LGPL would be non-trivial. IMO the Apache model upstream flowing downstream into a pure GPLv3 ecosystem using distributed development based around the TDF would be a reasonable place to start Robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
