In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the "one true license"... but I think there is one interesting point to be raised here...
On 6/5/2011 3:30 AM, Keith Curtis wrote: > > Why "open source" advocates at IBM would stand up for the "right" of > software to be made proprietary in the future makes no sense to me. I > would think the job of an IBM evangelist would be to advocate > copyleft, not to evangelize lax licenses using IBM's reputation. It is > the little guys that get screwed by lax licenses. Convincing IBM to > make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who > is working on that? First, let me correct you, open source predates the FSF. The OSI has done a fine job of addressing the meanings in a way all open source communities appreciate. There is a specific term used by the FSF and others, "Free/Libre" software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work is ever "Free/Libre". There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought, and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the two of us can. With that said... > LibreOffice is a success, and way ahead of you guys As an advocate of the one true license, I make several assumptions; that you have a disdain for the Microsoft and OS/X ports, as those operating systems are not Free. You aren't particularly keen on the BSD ports either, not because it is not Free, but that it does not promote the cause of software freedom. You have a goal of having the best collection of software possible available on Free Operating Systems, notably Linux. Sorry for any mischaracterization, but I would like to use your strong post to draw out this point; I see a strong role for license advocacy from LibreOffice, and also expect LibreOffice to extend OOo (with or without the ASF) in new and exciting directions. There are many developers who feel as you do, some possibly who even refused to play ball with the Sun/Oracle copyright assignment. LibreOffice might be expected to remain the premier Linux distribution of OpenOffice, as some of the best minds in Linux/Gnome/KDE development believe as you do. But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try to be the preeminent Windows or OS/X port of the software, since by definition improving GPL works for a closed source operating system is something of an oxymoron. Not that such a fork can't or shouldn't continue! But reactions such as your own are inevitable and to some extent, an ASF project gives the LibreOffice project more flexibility to focus on its core ecosystems, the Libre OS's. None of this is meant to be disingenuous to any open source or free software people or communities, it's just my reflections on how those individuals with strongly held licensing beliefs can (and likely will) collaborate within and across communities. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
