On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>I merged some fixes from bugzilla >>that may be shared, and they have taken a lot of code that >>they tagged as "contributed" by Oracle. > > Are you sure about that? please read the CLA which many of the said > bugzilla patches are covered with : > > "1. Contributor owns, and has sufficient rights to contribute, all > source code and related material intended to be compiled or integrated > with the source code for the OpenOffice.org open source product (the > "Contribution") which Contributor has ever delivered, and Sun has > accepted, for incorporation into the technology made available under > the OpenOffice.org open source project." > > Are you sure that all the pieces you are scrubbing from bugzilla meet > the 'and Sun has accepted, for incorporation into the technology made > available under the OpenOffice.org open source project" requirement ? > Seems to me that if they are still lingering in bugzilla, surely they > have not been 'accepted' by SUN yet... So you are essentially merging > some LGPLv3 patches, with no clear legal path to AL2. >
Since Sun had control of the Bugzilla instance, then anything you (a non-Sun member of the public) can see was "accepted" and "made available under the OpenOffice.org open source project". You see a similar use of the word "accept" in the Terms of Use of the website. >> >> The problem is not really integrating the codebases but the >> fact that the ownership of LO is so disperse and that TDF >> is incapable of taking any relicensing decision. > > This is not a problem, this is a feature. Copy-left + decentralized > ownership is a very effective way to protect 'Free' software... free > as in freedom aka 'Libre'. Linux is a prime example of that. > > But if you want to pin-point a problem. that _IS_ the attempt of some > corporate interest to force a unilateral re-licensing of the project, > and then claim that 'convergence' is desirable. > If convergence was desirable, then one obvious solution would have to > continue contributing according to the license of the project. > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> * A call to LibreOffice contributors also to contribute their changes to >> Apache as the ASF is the long desired independent foundation for >> OpenOffice.org. > The long desired independent foundation _is_ TDF. By the time Oracle > did its IBM-approved tantrum, TDF had already few releases > out-the-door... > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Ian Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It just seems that there are too many individual interests >> outweighing such a goal at present. >> > Apache OOo fork is born out of 'corporate' interest not 'individual' > interests. Hence the fatal license road block. > > Norbert >
