Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage

[Marc-André Laverdière]

Is there _any_ database that people use that doesn't have a JDBC driver 
at this point?

Maybe we can keep our lives simple by only enabling JDBC drivers?

Marc-André Laverdière
Software Security Scientist
Innovation Labs, Tata Consultancy Services
Hyderabad, India

On 06/12/2011 02:19 AM, Francois Tigeot wrote:

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 01:18:47PM -0700, NoOp wrote:

On 06/11/2011 12:42 PM, Francois Tigeot wrote:

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:47:54AM -0700, NoOp wrote:



As far as I know, nobody has used Adabas D since 2004, and the stuff is
proprietary crippleware at best.
There are much better options today if you want to use a serious database
engine.


Then perhaps the driver should be updated to support Adabas 8.2?



It can't be: the driver is for "Adabas D" and Adabas (no D) is a different
product.


The Community Edition is version 6.1.8.


This "Community Edition" is an old, crippled version of the "Adabas D"
product.
Apart from the name, it has nothing to do with the real Adabas database;
according to Wikipedia, Software AG bought the engine from a different
company and renamed it in the 1990s.

The PDF fact sheet on
http://www.softwareag.com/Corporate/products/adabas/rela_3rd_prod/adad/default.asp
is dated from 2007 and includes a reference to Adabas D 14; with such a
version gap 4 years ago, I can't help believing the "community version"
has been abandoned ...



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:56 AM, BRM  wrote:
> - Original Message 
>
>> From: Simos Xenitellis 
>> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
>> Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 6:31:25 PM
>> Subject: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re:
>>[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
>> > On Thu,  Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
>> >   wrote:
>> >>...
>> >>> The key thing being "that person". That  person is most likely not You,
>> >>> the developer who is contributing  to the software. Thus, You won't get
>> >>> those changes unless "that  person" decides to pass them back to you.
>> >>>
>> >>> So you  don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
>> >>> on  the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
>> >>>  might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might  not
>> >>> ever ask for the source  code.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> It's a common misconception. If a  TV uses Linux (most LCD/LED TV use
>>Linux),
>> >> you do not need to show  evidence you bought one in order to ask for
>> >> the Linux source  code.
>> >>
>> >> See the GPLv2 (per Linux kernel) license  text,
>> >>  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
>> >>
>> >>  “Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
>> >>  to give **any third party**, for a charge no more than your
>> >> cost of  physically performing source distribution,”
>> >
>> > That written offer  goes to the recipient (your statement comes from
>> > 3(b), which is  dependent upon the primary part of (3), which talks
>> > about distributions  to a recipient). The recipient does not need to
>> > transfer or pass that  offer to third parties.
>> >
>>
>> Here is the full sentence, omitting some  details for clarity:
>>
>> a. You [i.e. manufacturer, etc] may copy and  distribute the Program,
>> b. in object code or executable form
>> c. provided  that you also
>> d. accompany it with a written offer
>> e. to give **any**  third party
>> f. a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source  code
>>
>> > Again, you're relying on the goodwill of the recipient to get  changes
>>returned.
>> >
>>
>> Anyone can get a copy of the source code for  copyleft software.
>>
>
> Please read:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource
>
> Directly from the FSF, authors of the GPL. You must have a copy of the written
> offer in order to be entitled to receipt of the source.
>
>> Tell me which LCD/LED TV  you have (brand,  model), and I'll get for
>> you the source code (of the copyleft)  software.
>
> Only if you also have a copy of the written offer are they required to do so.
> See above.
>

So, what you are telling me is that if a manufacturer is already
violating the GPL,
then a third party cannot ask for the source code?
Is this a claim that the GPL is not enforceable?

If a product is violating the GPL, then you can ask
http://gpl-violations.org/ for assistance
so that the manufacturer makes available the source code as required,
for the full range of products.

For my TV, I click on
a. Yellow button (documentation)
b. (It's already on the Get started menu)
c. Select "Open source Licenses".

That's it.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

[BRM]

- Original Message 

> From: Simos Xenitellis 
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 6:31:25 PM
> Subject: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: 
>[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> > On Thu,  Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
> >   wrote:
> >>...
> >>> The key thing being "that person". That  person is most likely not You,
> >>> the developer who is contributing  to the software. Thus, You won't get
> >>> those changes unless "that  person" decides to pass them back to you.
> >>>
> >>> So you  don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
> >>> on  the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
> >>>  might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might  not
> >>> ever ask for the source  code.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's a common misconception. If a  TV uses Linux (most LCD/LED TV use 
>Linux),
> >> you do not need to show  evidence you bought one in order to ask for
> >> the Linux source  code.
> >>
> >> See the GPLv2 (per Linux kernel) license  text,
> >>  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
> >>
> >>  “Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> >>  to give **any third party**, for a charge no more than your
> >> cost of  physically performing source distribution,”
> >
> > That written offer  goes to the recipient (your statement comes from
> > 3(b), which is  dependent upon the primary part of (3), which talks
> > about distributions  to a recipient). The recipient does not need to
> > transfer or pass that  offer to third parties.
> >
> 
> Here is the full sentence, omitting some  details for clarity:
> 
> a. You [i.e. manufacturer, etc] may copy and  distribute the Program,
> b. in object code or executable form
> c. provided  that you also
> d. accompany it with a written offer
> e. to give **any**  third party
> f. a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source  code
> 
> > Again, you're relying on the goodwill of the recipient to get  changes 
>returned.
> >
> 
> Anyone can get a copy of the source code for  copyleft software.
> 

Please read:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource

Directly from the FSF, authors of the GPL. You must have a copy of the written 
offer in order to be entitled to receipt of the source.

> Tell me which LCD/LED TV  you have (brand,  model), and I'll get for
> you the source code (of the copyleft)  software.

Only if you also have a copy of the written offer are they required to do so. 
See above.

Ben


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I'm sorry. I have IBM Lotus Symphony 3.0 with fixpack 2 installed on my 
computer and I didn't pay anyone for it.

It is free to download.  Registration required.  That's it.  

If I want support, that is different.  Not much different than with Sun Star 
Office and Oracle Office, actually.

True, they have not offered me the source code.  But still, free as in free 
beer was enough for my purposes.  

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: BRM [mailto:bm_witn...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 14:50
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[ ... ]
 
Wrong. OOo, TDF/LO, etc may be making a public release. IBM, for example, may 
not.

They are only releasing to people who _pay them_ for the product. _ONLY_ those 
people (the ones they specifically distributed the product to) are required to 
be able to receive it - not necessarily the developer they drew the code from.

[ ... ]


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
>  wrote:
>>...
>>> The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
>>> the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
>>> those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.
>>>
>>> So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
>>> on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
>>> might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not
>>> ever ask for the source code.
>>>
>>
>> It's a common misconception. If a TV uses Linux (most LCD/LED TV use Linux),
>> you do not need to show evidence you bought one in order to ask for
>> the Linux source code.
>>
>> See the GPLv2 (per Linux kernel) license text,
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
>>
>> “Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
>> to give **any third party**, for a charge no more than your
>> cost of physically performing source distribution,”
>
> That written offer goes to the recipient (your statement comes from
> 3(b), which is dependent upon the primary part of (3), which talks
> about distributions to a recipient). The recipient does not need to
> transfer or pass that offer to third parties.
>

Here is the full sentence, omitting some details for clarity:

a. You [i.e. manufacturer, etc] may copy and distribute the Program,
b. in object code or executable form
c. provided that you also
d. accompany it with a written offer
e. to give **any** third party
f. a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code

> Again, you're relying on the goodwill of the recipient to get changes 
> returned.
>

Anyone can get a copy of the source code for copyleft software.

Tell me which LCD/LED TV  you have (brand, model), and I'll get for
you the source code (of the copyleft) software.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Andrea Pescetti]

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license
> that requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with
> the changes to my code that they make.  ...
> PS: It is the case that neither the GPL nor APLv2 have such a
> compulsory condition and it would be interesting to see what the FSF
> would say in the event someone sublicensed a GPL derivative in that
> manner.

Adding to what Greg already wrote (i.e., you need that a distribution of
the software happens in order to enforce this), this requirement is
considered compatible with Free Software licenses. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (search for "previous
developer" or read the last line about revision 1.11).

But it is not possible to attach it to existing LGPL3/GPL3 code since it
would violate section 10 of GPL3:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD

Regards,
  Andrea.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
 wrote:
>...
>> The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
>> the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
>> those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.
>>
>> So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
>> on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
>> might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not
>> ever ask for the source code.
>>
>
> It's a common misconception. If a TV uses Linux (most LCD/LED TV use Linux),
> you do not need to show evidence you bought one in order to ask for
> the Linux source code.
>
> See the GPLv2 (per Linux kernel) license text,
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
>
> “Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give **any third party**, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution,”

That written offer goes to the recipient (your statement comes from
3(b), which is dependent upon the primary part of (3), which talks
about distributions to a recipient). The recipient does not need to
transfer or pass that offer to third parties.

Again, you're relying on the goodwill of the recipient to get changes returned.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 15:50, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
>...
> If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license that 
> requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with the changes to 
> my code that they make.

No, you cannot.

Copyright Law applies to certain actions taken with copyrighted works.
In particular, as the copyright holder you have certain exclusive
rights. For US law, please refer to [1]. When you grant a license, you
allow the recipient to also have those rights, under your terms.

"Use" of your copyrighted work and "modification" are not one of your
exclusive rights. You cannot force a recipient to follow your terms
when they perform those actions.

The first three of those rights (reproduce, produce derivatives, and
distribute) are the rights generally used in the FLOSS world[2].
Somebody simply making modifcations in private does not fall under
those actions, so you have no way to force a recipient to return those
changes to you.

For that... you must resort to Contract Law, which is something
entirely different. (and that is what EULAs attempt to operate under,
but they often run into problems around "both parties agreeing to the
contract").

Cheers,
-g

[1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
[2] people have also tried to use "public performance" and "display"
to apply restrictions; see the AGPL

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:49 AM, BRM  wrote:
>
> So as Greg said, who has the rights (per the GPL) to receive the source is not
> necessarily the same as the community. The only people that have rights to
> receiving the source are the ones that the product was specifically 
> distributed
> to. If you are are not someone that received the product distributed by them,
> then you have no rights to receive the source - plain & simple.

As I said earlier, you do not need to be a copyright holder to request
the source code
of a copyleft software.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino  wrote:
>>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
>>> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
>>>
>>> This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
>>> contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
>>> of.
>>>
>>
>> GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone
>> else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of
>> the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the
>> GPL as well.
>
> The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
> the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
> those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.
>
> So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
> on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
> might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not
> ever ask for the source code.
>

It's a common misconception. If a TV uses Linux (most LCD/LED TV use Linux),
you do not need to show evidence you bought one in order to ask for
the Linux source code.

See the GPLv2 (per Linux kernel) license text,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

“Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to give **any third party**, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution,”

This misconception is mentioned and then explained often at the
http://gpl-violations.org/ mailing list.

The copyright holder ends up doing the suing for the source code in
order to make a manufacturer comply.
It is easier to do so, with more chances for success. Then, once the
manufacturer complies,
anyone can easily get the source code. And manufacturers do comply.

And talking about TVs, a certain manufacturer uses both copyleft and
permissive software
in order to make the firmware. While you get the source code of the
copyleft software, there is no
mention whatsoever for the permissive software.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[BRM]

- Original Message 

> From: todd rme 
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 3:13:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache 
OpenOffice
> 
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> > Ben  explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some  more:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino   wrote:
> >>
> >> In the context of a public free Office Suite  isn't that the same? If under
> >> GPL you MUST release the source as  GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
> >> same as releasing the  modifications you made???
> >
> > Nope. Again, because I only need to  release it to the people that I
> > gave a binary to. That is not the same  as "the community making the
> > software".
> 
> I think you missed the  "public free Office Suite" bit.  In that case
> the "people you gave the  binary to" is "anyone who wants it", which
> would include the developers if  they want to use the source code.  So
> in this case, in practice, having  the code as GPL means you must give
> the code back to the developers, or  rather you must make the code
> available for the developers to get for  themselves.  This is the
> situation software suites like IBM's would have  fallen under.
 
Wrong. OOo, TDF/LO, etc may be making a public release. IBM, for example, may 
not.

They are only releasing to people who _pay them_ for the product. _ONLY_ those 
people (the ones they specifically distributed the product to) are required to 
be able to receive it - not necessarily the developer they drew the code from.

Someone could take TDF/LO and make changes and do the same thing - only release 
to their paying customers.
And they only have to give the source to one of those paying customers - not 
anyone that comes along and asks for it.
Granted, if _one_ of those paying customers asked for the source they would 
then 
have the rights to pass it back to TDF/LO, but you cannot rely on that 
happening. Their paying customers are guaranteed that right by the GPL;  but 
that GPL grants _you_ as the developer nothing other than that.

So as Greg said, who has the rights (per the GPL) to receive the source is not 
necessarily the same as the community. The only people that have rights to 
receiving the source are the ones that the product was specifically distributed 
to. If you are are not someone that received the product distributed by them, 
then you have no rights to receive the source - plain & simple.

Ben


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1

-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:58
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17, Bernhard Dippold
 wrote:
> Hi Greg, Dennis, Friedrich, all
>
> thanks for pointing to this very topic.
>
> So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably
> minor consequences in code usage:
>
> While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus
> needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of
> copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing
> the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts.

I'm not familiar with the legal mechanics of OCA and JCA.

For Apache's ICLA and process... yes. The short answer is that a
third-party would not be able to sue *you* based on software they get
from the Apache Software Foundation. The Foundation is set up to
establish a trail of responsibility between the committers and the
Foundation itself. We use the word "oversight" when establishing that
linkage.

The committer places code into the repository under the oversight of
the Project Management Committee (PMC). Thus, the PMC has "instructed"
the committer to do this, rather than the committer acting as a free
agent.

The PMC's actions are reviewed by the Board of the Foundation. Thus,
the Board is providing oversight and accountability to the PMC. The
PMC is operating at the direction and wishes of the Board.

The Board represents the Foundation itself, and uses this chain of
oversight to establish responsibility.

If a third party attempted to sue You for (say) some violation of
their copyright, then the Foundation can step in and say "we are
responsible. Bernhard was acting according to our wishes. sue us, not
him." The theory is that a judge will then remove you from the case,
and put Apache in there.

This is why we have the ICLA and why we structure the Foundation in a
specific way. The Foundation exists to create a legal "umbrella" for
all of its 3000 committers. Those committers should remain safe from
third parties.

People simply committing into a repository do not necessarily have
this safety. There is no chain of oversight that allows an individual
to escape responsibility. This problem exists across the entire FLOSS
landscape. The saving grace is that we simply don't see these types of
lawsuits. So the Apache legal umbrella is nice, but the chances of
needing it are vanishingly small.

> Both allow the entity to release the code under any license (or single
> case authorization) they want to.

Yes.

> I don't want to discuss the possibility of positive or negative impacts
> of single sided license changes in comparison to updateable "plus" licenses.

"GPLv2 or newer" leaves you with the hope that the FSF will continue
to look after *your* interests with your code. Linus Torvalds didn't
believe the FSF would do the right thing for the Linux community, so
he switched all the headers to "GPLv2". In retrospect, that was a
smart thing to do because he very much disagrees with some aspects of
the GPLv3.

But yes: entities such as Oracle and Apache, having full licensing
rights, could apply licenses that the community disagrees with.
Personally, I trust Apache do it right :-)

> But is there a difference in licensing and code usage by third parties
> between OCA and ICLA (except the fact, that they can use Apache licensed
> code without being forced to negotiate with and probably pay fees to Oracle
> if they don't want to contribute back)?

Nope. In both cases, third parties are getting code from Oracle or
Apache, under whatever license that entity provides. How the code
arrived (via OCA or ICLA) is immaterial. Both entities could provide
the license under ALv2, and you'd have the same rights to that code.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I want to clear up one thing (I hope):

  >> Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to
  >> have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses?

  >As a developer, you never had those rights to begin with.

  >Apache is not removing any rights from You. People who use Apache code
(developers, admins, end-users, hobbyists, companies, etc) have more
rights: they can decide whether to return changes or not. But they do
not have to operate under Free Software principles. That
understandably bugs people. But as a developer, Apache is not reducing
your rights (the original phrase that I took issue with).

If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license that 
requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with the changes to 
my code that they make.  

There have been licenses like that, some of which were satisfied by patches 
being provided and not the whole source of the downstream use of the source 
code, possibly embedded in a proprietary software product.

Not sure how that sort of thing is enforceable, but as a copyright holder I 
think that comes under the exclusive rights that are mine, to be licensed as I 
see fit, at least in the US.

 - Dennis

PS: It is the case that neither the GPL nor APLv2 have such a compulsory 
condition and it would be interesting to see what the FSF would say in the 
event someone sublicensed a GPL derivative in that manner.  I suppose there 
could be a similar sublicensing of an APLv2 derivative, but not sure the Apache 
Foundation would have anything to say about it at all so long as the conditions 
of ALv2 were otherwise satisfied.



-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:05
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino  wrote:
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
>> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
>>
>> This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
>> contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
>> of.
>>
>
> GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone
> else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of
> the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the
> GPL as well.

The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.

So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not
ever ask for the source code.

> The Apache license says you don't have to distribute under the same license
> and therefore you don't have to provide the source code.

Correct.

> In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
> GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
> same as releasing the modifications you made???

Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I
gave a binary to. That is not the same as "the community making the
software".

Also, recognize that I might make a TON of changes. Create a massively
superior product. And then use it *internally*. I might not ever
distribute my work outside of the company.

Or... hey... I might put a web interface on the front of that Office
Suite, and run a web-based version of it. That isn't releasing the
software to anybody, so all of that awesome work that I did does not
have to be released. (see the AGPL if you want to solve this scenario)

> Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to
> have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses?

As a developer, you never had those rights to begin with.

Apache is not removing any rights from You. People who use Apache code
(developers, admins, end-users, hobbyists, companies, etc) have more
rights: they can decide whether to return changes or not. But they do
not have to operate under Free Software principles. That
understandably bugs people. But as a developer, Apache is not reducing
your rights (the original phrase that I took issue with).

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1

-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:37
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra  wrote:
> As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
> say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
> the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
> reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
> saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug
> that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository.
> I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either.
>
> I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There,
> within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the
> "Easyhack" status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved
> by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning
> code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have
> to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day.

Absolutely that is what matters. Whether the caretakers place *you* at
the forefront. Big faceless corporations generally don't, while
smaller communities usually do.

I believe the (recent) discussion stemmed from whether end-users care
about the *license*. They mostly want a great product and a responsive
caretaker. That's it. I can guarantee you that my mother, father,
brother, sister, and the rest of my extended family would give me a
blank stare if I told them they needed to use Free Software rather
than proprietary. Crickets would echo in the room.

There *are* end-users who want Free Software. Many of you care
strongly about it, and seek out Free Software. Granted. But when you
look at the tens of millions (hundreds?) of OOo and LO users, they
simply don't care.

Building and providing LibreOffice is a fabulous thing for people who
really care about Free Software. LO has an important place in our
software ecosystem. I just don't think projecting that philosophy onto
the "typical end-user" makes sense, however.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org Product Roadmap: made by whom ? was: Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module

[Martin Hollmichel]

Hi Sam,
> Do you have a concrete proposal?
yes, I have.

First, I do not have any problems with the Apache style of decision
making, lazy consensus sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I like that
style. This fits perfectly to the "meritocracy" principle.

My understanding is, that this principle is based on
* contributing individuals
* organizations/institutions contributing developers and/or money for
the infrastructure/governance, these organizations contribute because
they have derived products or other business around the regarding software.
So users are represented in this model by own work power or indirectly
by companies.
This principle has been proven to work quite well for many open source
projects.

I think this principle may get enhanced by enabling a non profit
organization to have their own resources on a project (This might fit
into the Apache philosophy considering this organization as an
contributing institution). I think this is necessary because there is
already a lot of business happening around OpenOffice, but most of these
businesses are just to small or have not the right expertise to execute
on the "meritocracy" principle.
So what the OOo project missed most was to have a path to get product
feature or tasks done (or just 4th level support) with the help of money
offered.

So my proposal is continue project decisions the Apache Style but also
to find a framework to make product decisions in a manner that also the
concerns of Users, local communities, QA, business partners, etc. get
honored. This framework also should enable to collect money so that
development (committer) resources can be found to get the issues
addressed in an equitable process.

We already have thousands of feature requests and enhancements in the
queue, we are putting a new bunch of requirements on top of it through
the current transition to Apache, I think we should seek the power of
_all_ OOo communities, users and businesses to achieve significant
growth to make OOo a better and successful product. And I did not even
included wishes like ODF Viewers, mobile and Cloud services around OOo.

My offer is to develop (with all concerned parties) a new charter for
all the groups mentioned above (as a successor of the Community Council
Charter) and enable the project to have own development resources. The
non profit organization Team OpenOffice.org e.V. played in the past just
the role of being the cash box of the CC in a quite defensive way
(http://download.openoffice.org/contribute.html, will you find the path
to donate ??), now Team OOo is preparing to offer a link between
business, communities, users and developers to enable growth on the new
futile ground we are now moving on.

Martin





-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I am not happy with Allen's characterization of Simon's participation.

I suspect the difference is that Allen put himself on the list of initial 
committers and is now on the podling PPMC at Apache.  Simon did not choose to 
put himself on that list.

That's Simon's business.  

Simon has been a vocal, active participant in the run-up to the Apache 
Incubator vote to accept the Oracle contribution and on the public lists that 
are now established for the Apache podling.

I, for one, welcome any contributions that Simon cares to make, and that Allen 
will be making.  

I should point out that it is a waste of time to become an initial committer 
and member of the podling PPMC with the goal of canceling Rob Weir's (or anyone 
else's) vote, because there is rarely any voting, *especially* on technical 
matters.  I am learning as a newcomer there that Apache is a *serious* 
inclusive meritocracy and it is better to look at it as there being no one who 
has a privileged seat at the table.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 09:37
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 16 Jun 2011, at 17:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote:

>> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
> by now that
>> it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
> and are working from
>> the inside rather of the outside.  You could have also been one of those
> persons with a seat
>> at the table, and together, we would have had twice the voice as Rob Weir.
> 
>> Simon Phipps replied:
>> Excuse me? What are all the contributions I am making on that list?
> Chopped liver?
> 
> Pretty much, yes.  As a person who chose not to have a seat at the table,
> you are serving up chopped liver for the people at the table to taste and
> decide whether they want to eat it.  That's a fair analogy, I think, if it's
> the one you want to use.

Given I've showed up in both conversations at Apache and made actual tangible 
contributions of at least the same scale as yours, I honestly have no idea what 
you are getting at, Allen. 

Thanks,

S.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Why is that a poor picture?

I am confident that some users choose Open/LibreOffice distributions for 
ideological reasons.

I also think many adopt software because they have a need that it satisfies in 
their use of it in creating and interchanging documents and the FOSS assurance 
has little meaning for them.  It simply is not relevant in their world.

What's poor about that?

Is it more important that LO be a political weapon than it be useful to people 
who have work to do?

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Augustine Souza [mailto:aesouza2...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 07:18
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer  wrote:
...
> End users do not care about
> who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc.  They
> just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
> needs.

Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are they really like that?
Or do we say so to support our argument?

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Well, it is not the OCA or ICLA that is passed onward.  

So the question is, I think, is there any difference in how the OCA allowed 
Oracle to license the contributions and how the ICLA allows Apache to license 
contributions?  There is one obvious difference: Apache can't enter into a 
private license nor create a sublicense that is incompatible with the license 
they are given in the ICLA.  Oracle has the power, under the OCA, to create 
whatever licenses it wanted and even make further transfers of copyright.

In practice, the LGPL license from Oracle and the ALv2 license from Apache both 
permit sublicensing, but the ALv2 is more permissive in lacking the reciprocity 
requirement.  As Thorsten has observed, it means he gives up more exclusive 
rights if he can't count on reciprocity and wants to require it.  

I don't agree that both allow the receiving entity to issue the contribution 
under any license they want to.  Definitely for Oracle but I don't think so for 
Apache, even though the ICLA does not identify the license Apache will use.  
(You have to trust that the foundation rules for Apache prevent the obvious 
transgressions and they must be aware what some dramatic change of direction 
would do with regard to their community base.)

IANAL and I don't know whether sublicensing of ALV2 licensed code as LGPL falls 
under the notion of "sublicensing."  But I suspect the requirement that the 
ALv2 license/notice be attached is not something a sublicense can work around.  
That is, a sublicense can't be *more* permissive than the license that is being 
sublicensed.  I could find no precedent for that in examples of sublicensing 
(admittedly, using Web sources of questionable virtue).

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Bernhard Dippold [mailto:bernh...@familie-dippold.at] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 04:18
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?

Hi Greg, Dennis, Friedrich, all

thanks for pointing to this very topic.

So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably
minor consequences in code usage:

While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus
needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of
copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing
the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts.

Both allow the entity to release the code under any license (or single
case authorization) they want to.

[ ... ]


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Robert Derman]

Greg Stein wrote:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra  wrote:
  

As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug
that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository.
I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either.

I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There,
within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the
"Easyhack" status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved
by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning
code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have
to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day.



Absolutely that is what matters. Whether the caretakers place *you* at
the forefront. Big faceless corporations generally don't, while
smaller communities usually do.

I believe the (recent) discussion stemmed from whether end-users care
about the *license*. They mostly want a great product and a responsive
caretaker. That's it. I can guarantee you that my mother, father,
brother, sister, and the rest of my extended family would give me a
blank stare if I told them they needed to use Free Software rather
than proprietary. Crickets would echo in the room.

There *are* end-users who want Free Software. Many of you care
strongly about it, and seek out Free Software. Granted. But when you
look at the tens of millions (hundreds?) of OOo and LO users, they
simply don't care.

Building and providing LibreOffice is a fabulous thing for people who
really care about Free Software. LO has an important place in our
software ecosystem. I just don't think projecting that philosophy onto
the "typical end-user" makes sense, however.

Cheers,
-g
  
This is exactly how I feel about this, and why I think that TDF forking 
the OOo code is the best thing that could have happened.  I suspect that 
in the first 1 to three months not much code development happened, 
naturally it takes time for things to get started.  So it would be my 
best guess that there has been about six months of software development 
under TDF.  That being the case, it seems like the LO software package 
has been evolving and improving at from 4 to 8 times the pace that it 
was under Sun/Oracle.




I have been on the OOo discuss list since 2001 perhaps even 2000, its 
hard to remember, anyway, from all the various comments and complaints 
over the years it seems like the real show-stoppers got fixed and the 
nuisance problems just got ignored for the most part.  Now it seems like 
with an all volunteer group rather than developers being assigned chores 
by corporate management, all the bugs are being addressed in a more 
impartial way.  Not having done any programming since college and BASIC, 
I don't know how to read C++ source code, but I have read here that 
there has been more work at cleaning up the source code, removing 
remarked out lines of code, and such during the last 6 months than 
during the previous 6 years. 



An example of M$ work, Vista was well over a year late in being 
released, and even then it was a horrible mess!  Over the years one 
theme on the OOo Discuss List was a sort of competition between OOo and 
M$ Office.  I think the only way to judge the relative merits of two 
such software suites is by relative user satisfaction.  By that metric 
it always seemed that OOo was about 2 to 3 years behind M$ Office, 
judging by the talk on the list.  Now if M$ continues at their current 
rate of progress, and if LO does likewise, then sometime during the next 
year LO would pass M$ Office in user satisfaction.  What could be better 
than that!?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[todd rme]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino  wrote:
>>
>> In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
>> GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
>> same as releasing the modifications you made???
>
> Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I
> gave a binary to. That is not the same as "the community making the
> software".

I think you missed the "public free Office Suite" bit.  In that case
the "people you gave the binary to" is "anyone who wants it", which
would include the developers if they want to use the source code.  So
in this case, in practice, having the code as GPL means you must give
the code back to the developers, or rather you must make the code
available for the developers to get for themselves.  This is the
situation software suites like IBM's would have fallen under.

-Todd

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Greg Stein]

Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino  wrote:
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
>> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
>>
>> This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
>> contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
>> of.
>>
>
> GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone
> else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of
> the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the
> GPL as well.

The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.

So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not
ever ask for the source code.

> The Apache license says you don't have to distribute under the same license
> and therefore you don't have to provide the source code.

Correct.

> In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
> GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
> same as releasing the modifications you made???

Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I
gave a binary to. That is not the same as "the community making the
software".

Also, recognize that I might make a TON of changes. Create a massively
superior product. And then use it *internally*. I might not ever
distribute my work outside of the company.

Or... hey... I might put a web interface on the front of that Office
Suite, and run a web-based version of it. That isn't releasing the
software to anybody, so all of that awesome work that I did does not
have to be released. (see the AGPL if you want to solve this scenario)

> Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to
> have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses?

As a developer, you never had those rights to begin with.

Apache is not removing any rights from You. People who use Apache code
(developers, admins, end-users, hobbyists, companies, etc) have more
rights: they can decide whether to return changes or not. But they do
not have to operate under Free Software principles. That
understandably bugs people. But as a developer, Apache is not reducing
your rights (the original phrase that I took issue with).

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Copyleft vs. "more permissive" (was: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

[Friedrich Strohmaier]

Hi BRM, *,

BRM schrieb:
> From: plino 

[..]

> Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could
> take a GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute
> it internally to itself without ever contributing back to the
> community as a whole.

True. Anyone using it for his own can do so.

> Likewise, it could also distribute that same project to its customers,
> making the source available to them and them alone.

True, they even can demand a fee for it.

> The community will may never see any changes from them; yet that is
> perfectly valid under all Open Source licenses - even the GPL.

Not true. If one of those customers goes ahead and publishes the source
code, that company can't forbid. This is covered by the GPL. That means:
If IBM put copyleft code (LGPL/GPL) in symphony then I could by a copy,
require the source code and publish it.

> Nothing forces people to work with the community. No license can do
> that.

right, but Your example lacks the point I told.

> So please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth -
> aside.

50% myth remaining ;o)).

[..]

> they only have to provide the source (in that case) to the end-users
> _upon request_ for up to 3 years for each version they release from
> the time they make the "sale". (See the GPL license.)

Which is enough time to get it, even if donations have to be collected
;o))

>> Under the Apache  license any company can take your code, fix it and
>> say: "Hey, this function  in the open source version doesn't work. I
>> just spend a day fixing it  (instead of  months to write it from
>> scratch). Why don't you buy mine  which works?"

> They can do that under the GPL too.

But we can get it back then. Thats a notable difference ;o))


Gruß/regards
-- 
Friedrich
Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/
LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17, Bernhard Dippold
 wrote:
> Hi Greg, Dennis, Friedrich, all
>
> thanks for pointing to this very topic.
>
> So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably
> minor consequences in code usage:
>
> While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus
> needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of
> copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing
> the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts.

I'm not familiar with the legal mechanics of OCA and JCA.

For Apache's ICLA and process... yes. The short answer is that a
third-party would not be able to sue *you* based on software they get
from the Apache Software Foundation. The Foundation is set up to
establish a trail of responsibility between the committers and the
Foundation itself. We use the word "oversight" when establishing that
linkage.

The committer places code into the repository under the oversight of
the Project Management Committee (PMC). Thus, the PMC has "instructed"
the committer to do this, rather than the committer acting as a free
agent.

The PMC's actions are reviewed by the Board of the Foundation. Thus,
the Board is providing oversight and accountability to the PMC. The
PMC is operating at the direction and wishes of the Board.

The Board represents the Foundation itself, and uses this chain of
oversight to establish responsibility.

If a third party attempted to sue You for (say) some violation of
their copyright, then the Foundation can step in and say "we are
responsible. Bernhard was acting according to our wishes. sue us, not
him." The theory is that a judge will then remove you from the case,
and put Apache in there.

This is why we have the ICLA and why we structure the Foundation in a
specific way. The Foundation exists to create a legal "umbrella" for
all of its 3000 committers. Those committers should remain safe from
third parties.

People simply committing into a repository do not necessarily have
this safety. There is no chain of oversight that allows an individual
to escape responsibility. This problem exists across the entire FLOSS
landscape. The saving grace is that we simply don't see these types of
lawsuits. So the Apache legal umbrella is nice, but the chances of
needing it are vanishingly small.

> Both allow the entity to release the code under any license (or single
> case authorization) they want to.

Yes.

> I don't want to discuss the possibility of positive or negative impacts
> of single sided license changes in comparison to updateable "plus" licenses.

"GPLv2 or newer" leaves you with the hope that the FSF will continue
to look after *your* interests with your code. Linus Torvalds didn't
believe the FSF would do the right thing for the Linux community, so
he switched all the headers to "GPLv2". In retrospect, that was a
smart thing to do because he very much disagrees with some aspects of
the GPLv3.

But yes: entities such as Oracle and Apache, having full licensing
rights, could apply licenses that the community disagrees with.
Personally, I trust Apache do it right :-)

> But is there a difference in licensing and code usage by third parties
> between OCA and ICLA (except the fact, that they can use Apache licensed
> code without being forced to negotiate with and probably pay fees to Oracle
> if they don't want to contribute back)?

Nope. In both cases, third parties are getting code from Oracle or
Apache, under whatever license that entity provides. How the code
arrived (via OCA or ICLA) is immaterial. Both entities could provide
the license under ALv2, and you'd have the same rights to that code.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[plino]

Greg Stein wrote:
> 
> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
> 
> This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
> contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
> of.
> 

GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone
else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of
the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the
GPL as well.

The Apache license says you don't have to distribute under the same license
and therefore you don't have to provide the source code.

In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
same as releasing the modifications you made???

Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to
have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses?

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-Libreoffice-Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3043423p3073268.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:41, Andre Schnabel  wrote:
>...
> Maybe Apache and TDF members might have a differnt view on the effects,
> as Apache members are more used to US copyright law, while TDF members
> are more used to the European way.

That is a very important point, Andre. Thanks for pointing it out. I
tend to forget it, too :-P

>...

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra  wrote:
> As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
> say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
> the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
> reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
> saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug
> that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository.
> I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either.
>
> I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There,
> within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the
> "Easyhack" status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved
> by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning
> code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have
> to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day.

Absolutely that is what matters. Whether the caretakers place *you* at
the forefront. Big faceless corporations generally don't, while
smaller communities usually do.

I believe the (recent) discussion stemmed from whether end-users care
about the *license*. They mostly want a great product and a responsive
caretaker. That's it. I can guarantee you that my mother, father,
brother, sister, and the rest of my extended family would give me a
blank stare if I told them they needed to use Free Software rather
than proprietary. Crickets would echo in the room.

There *are* end-users who want Free Software. Many of you care
strongly about it, and seek out Free Software. Granted. But when you
look at the tens of millions (hundreds?) of OOo and LO users, they
simply don't care.

Building and providing LibreOffice is a fabulous thing for people who
really care about Free Software. LO has an important place in our
software ecosystem. I just don't think projecting that philosophy onto
the "typical end-user" makes sense, however.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:37, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>...
> And right there you have both reached a point so familiar that even I have 
> written an article about it:
> http://webmink.com/essays/causality/
> "The fact it is still an open question after nearly 30 years of free and open 
> source software experience suggests both outlooks have merits, and we’ll not 
> resolve the question here!"

Nah. I was responding to the "removes rights" comment. Not "which
approach best improves the commons". I don't have much of an opinion
there because I agree with your article: both approaches improve the
commons, and it is very hard to determine which is "better". So I just
avoid relative value judgements on either approach w.r.t. commons.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:27, plino  wrote:
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>  how can you say that Apache
>> "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you
>> still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
>> doesn't take anything from You.
>>
>
> Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can see that :)
>
> Compared to GPL (which is what Apache is asking developers to give up on) it
> removes the right to be given back any improvement or fix to the code you
> contributed.

As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.

This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
of.

>...

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[steering-discuss] MC-meeting minutes 2011-06-16

[André Schnabel]

Hi,

meeting minutes are at the wiki:
 
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Committee_Meetings#Minutes_2011-06-16

(Cor, Fridrich - please edit the wiki, if I forgot something important.)

I'll inform the approved members (and rejected applicants) within the 
next few hours and update the website after that.


regards,

André

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Enhancement Request: Comment Ranges

[M Henri Day]

2011/6/16 Charles Jenkins 

> Cristoph wrote:
>
>   What I'm currently unsure about - how to proceed. Although I'm not
>>  that convinced about voting, maybe it should be added to:
>>  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Vote_for_Enhancement
>>
>
> I did it! The wiki finally let me edit the page!
>
> Now that we can find Bug 38244 under the section for voting on
> Enhancements to Writer, I'd like to ask everyone with an interest in
> this issue to please sign up and add your vote.
>
> If you use Track Changes to work with an editor, you probably need this
> feature! :-)
>

Charles, I'm happy to hear that you were able to edit the page, but less
happy that, despite signing in, I couldn't find any way to register my vote.
A step-by-step for the intellectually challenged ?...

Henri

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Pieter E. Zanstra]

As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug
that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository.
I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either.

I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There,
within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the
"Easyhack" status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved
by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning
code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have
to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day. 
P


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[BRM]

- Original Message 

> From: plino 
> BRM wrote:
> > 
> > Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a  company wanted it could
> > take a 
> > GPL product, make whatever  changes it wanted, and distribute it internally
> > to 
> > itself  without ever contributing back to the community as a whole.
> > Likewise, it  could also distribute that same project to its customers,
> > making 
> > the source available to them and them alone. The community will may  never
> > see 
> > any changes from them; yet that is perfectly valid  under all Open Source 
> > licenses - even the GPL.
> > 
> > Nothing  forces people to work with the community. No license can do that.
> > So 
> > please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth -  aside.
> > 
> 
> So basically GPL is worth nothing because no one can  force anybody to
> contribute back?
> 
> Is that an argument in favor of  convincing developers to use the Apache
> license (because they aren't getting  anything back anyway) or to simply stop
> contributing to Open Source  projects?

No. I am merely pointing out the fallacy in what we being said.

To many people assume that GPL means contribute back to the community when it 
does not.

So to argue forcing people to contribute back under any FLOSS license is 100% 
wrong, when the topic should be about the rights of the end-users - GPL 
guarantees them while Apache and other permissive licenses do not necessarily 
do 
so - in most all cases I am aware of they do not at all.

IOW, if you are going to argue differences in the license and reasons to go one 
way or the other, at least get your facts straight about the license and its 
implications. Then you can have a proper debate on the merits of which one to 
go 
with.

BTW, I typically lean towards using the GPL/LGPL myself. However, that won't 
stop me from contributing to BSD/Apache licensed projects either - or even 
projects governed by ICLA/CLA/etc (so long as they don't inhibit my abilities 
to 
work on other projects under other licenses). Each license has its use; and 
each 
community has their favored license. TDF/LO favors LGPL/GPL; Apache favors the 
more permissive Apache License. So far as I am concerned, with certain 
exceptions (e.g. MS Public License) as long as the license is approved by the 
Open Source Initiative as being a proper Open Source license - requirements 
being derived from the early Debian Social Contract - then what does it matter 
as long as the users can make an informed decision? - that is, if they don't 
like IBM Symphony they can make the decision to use Apache's OOo or any derived 
product, or even LO (since you guys have at least expressed the concept that 
you 
are truly an OOo fork and don't want to be seen as a derived product from 
OOo/ApacheOOo). That is just me - and I know many on this list will disagree, 
that is their right.

Ben

P.S. On the other hand, I get really pissed at companies like March Hare 
Software, Ltd. that have taken open source - even GPL licensed - software and 
essentially made them proprietary. It is very hard to move off of CVSNT to a 
proper CVS install, or even to another system (e.g. SVN, git) because of the 
changes they have made and the non-availability of the source. Yet, they 
support 
projects like TortoiseCVS so that users can continue to use CVSNT. 
(http://www.evscm.org/modules/Downloads/)


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Robert Derman]

Augustine Souza wrote:

On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer  wrote:
...
  

End users do not care about
who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc.  They
just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
needs.



Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are they really like that?
Or do we say so to support our argument?
  
As one of those end users I would have to say that that is probably 
about right.  Unless something interferes with the quality or 
availability of the software or the support available for it, we are 
probably not going to care.  Now the situation with OOo and Sun, and 
later Oracle was that comments, complaints and requests by end users 
seemed to basically be ignored, that does bother end users!  This 
situation is notably better with TDF running things. 



I could be wrong about this, but I don't think I am, OOo being primarily 
the responsibility of a large for profit corporation it was treated like 
a proprietary software package as far as development and support was 
concerned.  Comparing Microsoft Internet Explorer with Mozilla Firefox 
shows that an independent not-for-profit foundation can actually produce 
a better software "Product" than a huge for-profit corporation.  So I am 
confidently hoping that LO under TDF will actually fare better than OO 
under Sun and Oracle. 


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer  wrote:
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
>> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
>> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
>
>> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come over to
> a different project,
>> that likely noone here is really happy with, that was setup as a fait
> acompli, marketed as the
>> "natural upstream", removes rights from people's contributions, and is
> effectively competing
>> (by how the proposal reads)?
>
 ...snip...
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Allen
>

If that is your best attempt for reconciliation, you are doing it wrong.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[todd rme]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer  wrote:
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
>> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
>> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
>
>> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come over to
> a different project,
>> that likely noone here is really happy with, that was setup as a fait
> acompli, marketed as the
>> "natural upstream", removes rights from people's contributions, and is
> effectively competing
>> (by how the proposal reads)?
>
> Here's what could have been: The world could have woken up one morning to an
> announcement by the TdF congratulating the Apache Foundation for joining the
> OpenOffice community, and stating that it was looking forward to working
> with Apache, IBM and all other interested parties to create the best
> possible open document technologies, and that the TdF would be incorporating
> those technologies into LibreOffice in order to make it the best end-user
> office suite possible.

The world could also have woken up one morning to the announcement
that the ASF was standing in solidarity with the TDF, supported TDFs
move to bring more openness and freedom to OpenOffice, was convinced
by the rapid strides they have made in improving OpenOffice and the
great swell of community support that TDF was the proper place for it,
and that they did not want to do anything that could divide and hurt
the community of an important project like LibreOffice/OpenOffice.
But the world didn't hear that, either.  It's a two-way street, here.

-Todd

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simon Phipps]

On 16 Jun 2011, at 17:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote:

>> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
> by now that
>> it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
> and are working from
>> the inside rather of the outside.  You could have also been one of those
> persons with a seat
>> at the table, and together, we would have had twice the voice as Rob Weir.
> 
>> Simon Phipps replied:
>> Excuse me? What are all the contributions I am making on that list?
> Chopped liver?
> 
> Pretty much, yes.  As a person who chose not to have a seat at the table,
> you are serving up chopped liver for the people at the table to taste and
> decide whether they want to eat it.  That's a fair analogy, I think, if it's
> the one you want to use.

Given I've showed up in both conversations at Apache and made actual tangible 
contributions of at least the same scale as yours, I honestly have no idea what 
you are getting at, Allen. 

Thanks,

S.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Allen Pulsifer]

> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
by now that
> it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
and are working from
> the inside rather of the outside.  You could have also been one of those
persons with a seat
> at the table, and together, we would have had twice the voice as Rob Weir.

> Simon Phipps replied:
> Excuse me? What are all the contributions I am making on that list?
Chopped liver?

Pretty much, yes.  As a person who chose not to have a seat at the table,
you are serving up chopped liver for the people at the table to taste and
decide whether they want to eat it.  That's a fair analogy, I think, if it's
the one you want to use.

Allen



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simon Phipps]

On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:58, Allen Pulsifer wrote:

> You could have also
> been one of those persons with a seat at the table, and together, we would
> have had twice the voice as Rob Weir.

Excuse me? What are all the contributions I am making on that list? Chopped 
liver?

S.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Allen Pulsifer]

> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice project 
> is a competing project.  You simply chose to view it that way.

> Simon Phipps wrote:
> The main proposer of the project, Rob Weir of IBM, clearly stated his
intent for it to be
> a competing project - he even accused me of being potentially in breach of
anti-trust
> law on the Apache list[1], and has just re-asserted his view on his
blog[2]. So while many
> of us had hoped for a collaborative approach, there are powerful forces
who don't want that.

Hello Simon,

The donation of the OpenOffice code, trademark and domain were made to the
Apache Foundation, not to IBM or to Rob Weir.  Rob Weir is only one of many
people who are now members of the project at Apache.  As the board members
of the Apache Foundation made it clear, those members will have the primary
responsibility for determining the direction of the project, not IBM or Rob
Weir.  I happen to be one of those persons, and as a member, I have the same
voice as Rob Weir.  That means the same voice in determining what goes on
the openoffice.org website, how the openoffice.org trademark is used, and
whether the project direction is collaborative or competitive.  As an
experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know by now
that it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
and are working from the inside rather of the outside.  You could have also
been one of those persons with a seat at the table, and together, we would
have had twice the voice as Rob Weir.  Every other member of this community
could have also joined, and that would have been an overwhelming voice.
Again, a lost opportunity.

Allen



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[plino]

BRM wrote:
> 
> Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could
> take a 
> GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally
> to 
> itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole.
> Likewise, it could also distribute that same project to its customers,
> making 
> the source available to them and them alone. The community will may never
> see 
> any changes from them; yet that is perfectly valid under all Open Source 
> licenses - even the GPL.
> 
> Nothing forces people to work with the community. No license can do that.
> So 
> please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth - aside.
> 

So basically GPL is worth nothing because no one can force anybody to
contribute back?

Is that an argument in favor of convincing developers to use the Apache
license (because they aren't getting anything back anyway) or to simply stop
contributing to Open Source projects?

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-Libreoffice-Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3043423p3072557.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[timofonic timofonic]

Hello Allen.

I'm just an end user with low money incomes that likes to know about
the project but here are my opinions.

I see LibreOffice a success, the community surpassed problems and is
getting very popular. Why starting to make a project with a very
similar codebase at the last time instead joining the effort? Who's
splitting the community now? ;)

The way is that Apache Foundation and Oracle/IBM are dictating the
conditions instead of a negotiating them with the successful and
community backed project (LibreOffice) is insulting to the project
itself. Why is their license and maintaining approach better than the
one from The Document Foundation? They want to rule the community, not
becoming part of it.

I'm not so happy with your all of your rhetoric in your words. You are
writing long statements full of marketing and political phrases. Maybe
it's just a matter of corporate culture? ;)

Java is a bad example and you should know that, because there are tons
of proprietary or forked third party run-times instead a proper one
and the language was governed in a very dictatorship way. That gave
many problems both in technological and community sides.

Anyway, I see *a lot* more successful GPL projects than BSD-like ones.
Linux is a good example of this, 20th anniversary this year ;)

I believe BSD-like licenses help the corporations to make their own
proprietary forks, it's OK if the way is to make those companies save
money and extending the ODF format. But that not benefits the FOSS
ecosystem at all, because Lotus Symphony or any future Oracle product
can only have the very good point of using ODF and not sure if that's
enough for selling the Free Software spirit (source code is finally
the best documentation at the end).

While maybe FSF can have their mistakes, GPL is the best contribution
to the history of Open Source.

But my opinions probably don't matter at all, because I'm just an
unknown person with broken English and not working on the big
business...

I just wanted to express my opinion here.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer  wrote:
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
>> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
>> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
>
>> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come over to
> a different project,
>> that likely noone here is really happy with, that was setup as a fait
> acompli, marketed as the
>> "natural upstream", removes rights from people's contributions, and is
> effectively competing
>> (by how the proposal reads)?
>
> Hello Thorsten,
>
> I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice project is a
> competing project.  You simply chose to view it that way.  There are others,
> such as myself, who view it as a potential upstream project, where all of
> the contributions at the upstream project can be used by LibreOffce.  In
> that respect, it is similar to python, java, boost, hsqldb, libjpeg, curl,
> lpsolve, or anyone of hundreds of other project.  Are those competing
> projects?
>
> Second, I can recommend that LibreOffice contributors join Apache OpenOffice
> because I am firmly convinced that would be in the best interests of the
> LibreOffice project.  Amazingly, your response does not even argue
> otherwise.  Instead, your response focuses on the fact even if it were in
> the best interests of the LibreOffice project, for personal reasons you
> would never consider reconciling with it.  That to me is just astounding,
> that you are open and brazen about putting your personal issues ahead of the
> project.
>
> Here's what could have been: The world could have woken up one morning to an
> announcement by the TdF congratulating the Apache Foundation for joining the
> OpenOffice community, and stating that it was looking forward to working
> with Apache, IBM and all other interested parties to create the best
> possible open document technologies, and that the TdF would be incorporating
> those technologies into LibreOffice in order to make it the best end-user
> office suite possible.  The world could have then read in the press and
> trade magazines that virtually all of the LibreOffice developers had joined
> the Apache OpenOffice project, that the community had been reunited and that
> the future was bright.  The end users (remember the end users, the ones I
> talked about in my last post that you seem intent on ignoring?), heartened
> by the optimistic message and comforted by the reunification of the
> community, would have come back off the sidelines looking to benefit from
> the project, and many of them would have discovered LibreOffice.  The
> LibreOffice project would when be boosted by thousands of new users, and
> possibly could over time have developed a reputation as the best OpenOffice
> package.
>
> Instead, due to your personal issues, the world has heard a much 

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Italo Vignoli]

On 6/16/11 4:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:


So my all means, continue forward with your decision that your personal
story is what really matters.  That is your prerogative.  Meanwhile, the
LibreOffice project will never be what it could have been.  The opportunity
that has been lost will never come back again.  That is the tragedy.


It looks like you have different views from ours, and ours are as 
legitimate as yours (unless you belong to the same family of Rob Weir, 
who assumes to be the only person with legitimate views about TDF and 
LibreOffice).


Opportunities are symmetrical, while this opportunity looks asymmetrical 
(we have the opportunity of reuniting the community under the ASF 
umbrella, while ASF has not the opportunity of reuniting the community 
inside TDF mixing bowl).


I understand that you are very happy with the ASF project. If you are 
happy we are happy for you. Users will decide on their own: they don't 
need your suggestions.


--
Italo Vignoli
italo.vign...@gmail.com
mobile +39.348.5653829
VoIP +39.02.320621813
skype italovignoli

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Allen,

While I am rather tired of this combative thread of discussion and think it is 
way overdue for it to stop, you make some statements that can't be left 
unchallenged.

On 16 Jun 2011, at 15:43, Allen Pulsifer wrote:

> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> 
> Hello Thorsten,
> 
> I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice project is a
> competing project.  You simply chose to view it that way. 

The main proposer of the project, Rob Weir of IBM, clearly stated his intent 
for it to be a competing project - he even accused me of being potentially in 
breach of anti-trust law on the Apache list[1], and has just re-asserted his 
view on his blog[2]. So while many of us had hoped for a collaborative 
approach, there are powerful forces who don't want that.
> 
> Here's what could have been: The world could have woken up one morning to an
> announcement by the TdF congratulating the Apache Foundation for joining the
> OpenOffice community

The TDF press release was in fact remarkably positive considering the 
situation[3], welcomed the move and offered scope for discussion over 
collaboration.

> So my all means, continue forward with your decision that your personal
> story is what really matters.  That is your prerogative.  Meanwhile, the
> LibreOffice project will never be what it could have been.  The opportunity
> that has been lost will never come back again.  That is the tragedy.

The tragedy is that people want to keep this divisive argument alive way beyond 
its sell-by date. I think it's time to stop it, and either to focus on the 
project that you want to work on or seek positively for ways to create 
collaborations.

Cheers,

Simon





[1] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cof225fdf79.6bebc50b-on852578a7.00052da4-852578a7.00065...@lotus.com%3E
[2] 
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/openoffice-libreoffice-and-the-scarcity-fallacy.html
[3] 
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about-oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[BRM]

- Original Message 

> From: plino 
> Greg Stein wrote:
> >  how can you say that Apache
> >  "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you
> > still  own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
> > doesn't take  anything from You.
> > 
> 
> Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can  see that :) 
> 
> Compared to GPL (which is what Apache is asking developers  to give up on) it
> removes the right to be given back any improvement or fix  to the code you
> contributed.
> Since many people are doing this pro  bono, I think that it is fair that at
> least they retain the right to have  access to any fix or improvement to
> their code.

Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could take a 
GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally to 
itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole.
Likewise, it could also distribute that same project to its customers, making 
the source available to them and them alone. The community will may never see 
any changes from them; yet that is perfectly valid under all Open Source 
licenses - even the GPL.

Nothing forces people to work with the community. No license can do that. So 
please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth - aside.

GPL, like all Open Source licenses, is about the end-user NOT the developer. 
Yes, there are a lot of developers that are also end-users, and developers are 
required to help make Open Source open source, but ultimately it is about 
providing a product to end-users with the same rights, etc that you had to 
start 
with.

Now, granted, the Apache License is more liberal in that it allows companies to 
not have to pass on those same rights; that is the difference - it doesn't 
require that they also make the source available to the end-user. So IBM is 
free 
to develop Symphony without having to provide source to the end-users. But 
there 
is nothing preventing them from having Symphony derived from LibreOffice under 
the LGPL and not providing any changes back to LibreOffice either; they only 
have to provide the source (in that case) to the end-users _upon request_ for 
up 
to 3 years for each version they release from the time they make the "sale". 
(See the GPL license.)
 
 
> Under the Apache  license any company can take your code, fix it and say:
> "Hey, this function  in the open source version doesn't work. I just spend a
> day fixing it  (instead of  months to write it from scratch). Why don't you
> buy mine  which works?"

They can do that under the GPL too.

Ben


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Allen Pulsifer]

Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache 
> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the 
> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.

> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come over to
a different project,
> that likely noone here is really happy with, that was setup as a fait
acompli, marketed as the
> "natural upstream", removes rights from people's contributions, and is
effectively competing
> (by how the proposal reads)?

Hello Thorsten,

I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice project is a
competing project.  You simply chose to view it that way.  There are others,
such as myself, who view it as a potential upstream project, where all of
the contributions at the upstream project can be used by LibreOffce.  In
that respect, it is similar to python, java, boost, hsqldb, libjpeg, curl,
lpsolve, or anyone of hundreds of other project.  Are those competing
projects?

Second, I can recommend that LibreOffice contributors join Apache OpenOffice
because I am firmly convinced that would be in the best interests of the
LibreOffice project.  Amazingly, your response does not even argue
otherwise.  Instead, your response focuses on the fact even if it were in
the best interests of the LibreOffice project, for personal reasons you
would never consider reconciling with it.  That to me is just astounding,
that you are open and brazen about putting your personal issues ahead of the
project.

Here's what could have been: The world could have woken up one morning to an
announcement by the TdF congratulating the Apache Foundation for joining the
OpenOffice community, and stating that it was looking forward to working
with Apache, IBM and all other interested parties to create the best
possible open document technologies, and that the TdF would be incorporating
those technologies into LibreOffice in order to make it the best end-user
office suite possible.  The world could have then read in the press and
trade magazines that virtually all of the LibreOffice developers had joined
the Apache OpenOffice project, that the community had been reunited and that
the future was bright.  The end users (remember the end users, the ones I
talked about in my last post that you seem intent on ignoring?), heartened
by the optimistic message and comforted by the reunification of the
community, would have come back off the sidelines looking to benefit from
the project, and many of them would have discovered LibreOffice.  The
LibreOffice project would when be boosted by thousands of new users, and
possibly could over time have developed a reputation as the best OpenOffice
package.

Instead, due to your personal issues, the world has heard a much different
story: that you were dissed or slighted; that there is possibly some problem
with the TdF or LibreOffice that people keep talking about, and no matter
how much it is denied, the nagging feeling persists that it might be true;
and that the LibreOffice community refuses to work with IBM or the Apache
Foundation for personal reasons.

It seems that your story about being dissed or slighted in one of your
favorite stories, and you are determined to keep telling it for a long time.
I'm quite certain that the end users (remember the end users, the ones I
talked about in my last post that you seem intent on ignoring?) aren't
interested in that story.

With just a few simple actions on your part, you could have accomplished in
a few minutes what would have taken you at least a year to accomplish with
just programming (if it can even be accomplished that way at all).  That's
right, in this world, marketing matters.  User perception matters.  The best
mouse trap does not always win.  A few positives stories in the press can
make or break a fledgling project.  You can spend years developing software,
and then sabotage it in a minute with a poor marketing decision.  Such is
that nature of business.

So my all means, continue forward with your decision that your personal
story is what really matters.  That is your prerogative.  Meanwhile, the
LibreOffice project will never be what it could have been.  The opportunity
that has been lost will never come back again.  That is the tragedy.

Best Regards,

Allen



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?

[Andre Schnabel]

Hi,

 Original-Nachricht 
> Von: Bernhard Dippold 

> 
> So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably
> minor consequences in code usage:
> 
> While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus
> needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of
> copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing
> the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts.


Maybe Apache and TDF members might have a differnt view on the effects, 
as Apache members are more used to US copyright law, while TDF members 
are more used to the European way.

E.g. for me as a German citizen it does not matter at all if a company
wants a copyright assignment from me or not - I just cannot transfer
"copyright" (due to german law). The only thing I can do is to grant
permission to use (e.g. to relicense) my contributions.


I'm not arguing that any of the OCA / JCA / ICLA is good or bad - 
just trying to tell that we might have very differnt views on the issue.
And while being different, all those views might be correct at the same 
time.

regards,

André

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[timofonic timofonic]

There are end users that care of freedom in a broad sense. I'm one of
them, using Linux-based systems since late 90s :)

And we aren't so few, because the number is growing and specially in
this worldwide economical crisis. You can see by objective stadistics
that the adoption of FOSS is bigger in economically poorer (I dislike
the "poor" term in essence, but..) countries than economically richer
ones.

The need of a corporate entity that monopolizes the support is
contrary to the spirit of Open/Free Source. The same work can be done
by local companies, improve competing and also those smaller companies
can contribute in developing the product too.

You can also follow the Mozilla approach, but that's a very different
and difficult topic.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Augustine Souza  wrote:
> On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer  wrote:
> ...
>> End users do not care about
>> who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc.  They
>> just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
>> needs.
>
> Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are they really like that?
> Or do we say so to support our argument?
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Augustine Souza]

On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer  wrote:
...
> End users do not care about
> who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc.  They
> just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
> needs.

Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are they really like that?
Or do we say so to support our argument?

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Magazine LibreOffice International

[Marc Paré]

Le 2011-06-15 19:54, Joe Rotello a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Klaibson Ribeiro 
wrote:

>  Hi.
>
>  I was thinking if we organize an Magazine on LibreOffice, with 
members of

>  all communities the world?
>
>  Good week.
>
>  --
>  Klaibson Ribeiro
>  Tel: (48) 9625-8273
>  www.creativesolucoes.com.br


What if an electronic publishing company assisted in design, 
development and creation of a printed and/or electronic multiple OS, 
graphically oriented version of such a publication?


And likely would be able to short and long term handle regional, 
national or electronic subscription to such a publication?


And likely could spearhead, but not all facets except with assistance 
of people, of taking the publication to English, French, German, 
initially, audiences, with the common-sense probability of assisting 
into other languages, presuming to be Italian, Russian, Japanese, 
Chinese?


It will take a family to do the above, albeit a closely knit, 
connected family.


I would welcome responses both here, and in order to set-up a 
communications ring, to my Skype or to email. Especially note the 
value of Skype, and HTML email.


Joe Rotello
Knoxville, TN / USA
Skype: joerotello
eMail: i...@windowgroup.com


Hi Joe

We are in full discussion and planning mode on the marketing list re: 
this topic. BTW, the BrOffice members have already show us how well they 
have managed their Brasilian magazine and we are fortunate in being able 
to get their help and advise on all of this. If you are interested feel 
free to join in on the threads. The structure for an international 
LibreOffice Magazine is now being put together.[1] It will also be easy 
for NL groups to set up their translations of the international magazine 
as we are also setting this up as we go along with structure planning.


Cheers

Marc

[1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/5985

--
Marc Paré
http://www.parEntreprise.com


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] First TDF Advisory Board members demonstrate wide corporate support for LibreOffice

[Italo Vignoli]

On 6/16/11 2:05 AM, Robert Derman wrote:


I noticed in the following list that there is no one from North America.
I am just a bit concerned about this. Should I be?


I am generally managing contacts with journalists based in the US, 
although this sometimes means that I have to work quite late at night. I 
easily cover up to 6PM EST (3PM PST), but sometimes even later.


Yesterday I had a Skype conversation with a journalist based in San 
Francisco at 4PM PST (1AM CET).


I personally don't see a real problem. US media are the most 
sophisticated (when we look at technology), and we don't have any media 
professional inside our US community. Of course, we can provide a media 
training (and this is something that we will organize at the conference 
in Paris, and we could organize the first time I will cross the ocean).


For the time being, US journalists are starting to consider myself as 
their TDF media interface.


--
Italo Vignoli
italo.vign...@gmail.com
mobile +39.348.5653829
VoIP +39.02.320621813
skype italovignoli

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Enhancement Request: Comment Ranges

[Charles Jenkins]

Cristoph wrote:


 What I'm currently unsure about - how to proceed. Although I'm not
 that convinced about voting, maybe it should be added to:
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Vote_for_Enhancement


I did it! The wiki finally let me edit the page!

Now that we can find Bug 38244 under the section for voting on
Enhancements to Writer, I'd like to ask everyone with an interest in
this issue to please sign up and add your vote.

If you use Track Changes to work with an editor, you probably need this
feature! :-)

--

Charles



.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: The information contained in this 
electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, may contain 
confidential information that is legally privileged and confidential. The 
information is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If 
you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender 
and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the 
taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the information received in 
error is strictly prohibited.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simon Phipps]

On 16 Jun 2011, at 09:27, plino wrote:

> 
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> 
>> how can you say that Apache
>> "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you
>> still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
>> doesn't take anything from You.
>> 
> 
> Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can see that :) 
> 
> Compared to GPL (which is what Apache is asking developers to give up on) it
> removes the right to be given back any improvement or fix to the code you
> contributed.
> 
> Since many people are doing this pro bono, I think that it is fair that at
> least they retain the right to have access to any fix or improvement to
> their code.
> 
> Under the Apache license any company can take your code, fix it and say:
> "Hey, this function in the open source version doesn't work. I just spend a
> day fixing it (instead of  months to write it from scratch). Why don't you
> buy mine which works?"


And right there you have both reached a point so familiar that even I have 
written an article about it:
http://webmink.com/essays/causality/
"The fact it is still an open question after nearly 30 years of free and open 
source software experience suggests both outlooks have merits, and we’ll not 
resolve the question here!"

S.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?

[Bernhard Dippold]

Hi Greg, Dennis, Friedrich, all

thanks for pointing to this very topic.

So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably
minor consequences in code usage:

While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus
needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of
copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing
the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts.

Both allow the entity to release the code under any license (or single
case authorization) they want to.

I don't want to discuss the possibility of positive or negative impacts
of single sided license changes in comparison to updateable "plus" licenses.

But is there a difference in licensing and code usage by third parties 
between OCA and ICLA (except the fact, that they can use Apache licensed 
code without being forced to negotiate with and probably pay fees to 
Oracle if they don't want to contribute back)?


Best regards

Bernhard

PS: Just one addition to a point below...

Greg Stein schrieb:

[...]
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 21:17, Dennis E. Hamilton
  wrote:

[...]

With regard to copyright, the Apache ICLA is very much like the
license that the terms of use for the openoffice.org site assert
that you are providing in making contributions on the site (without
having entered into any OCA).[...]


While this is true for copyright of contributions not to be included in 
the product OpenOffice.org, re-usage of the contributions are different 
(copyleft license on the OOo site, permissive license at Apache) and 
inclusion of any contribution to the code of OOo was dependent on a 
signed JCA/OCA, as they have been rejected by Sun/Oracle even if they 
have been licensed under LGPL.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [steering-discuss] Joining the OASIS Consortium

[Italo Vignoli]

On 6/16/11 7:52 AM, André Schnabel wrote:


Am 15.06.2011 20:24, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz:



So let me rephrase this proposal. Given the membership fee, do you
approve TDF joining the OASIS as soon as the foundation is set up?



+1
André


+1
Italo

--
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813
email it...@libreoffice.it - skype italovignoli
gtalk italo.vign...@gmail.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [steering-discuss] Granting authorization to use the TDF logo for the french local association La Mouette

[Charles-H. Schulz]

Bernhard,


Le Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:30:49 +0200,
Bernhard Dippold  a écrit :

> Hi Charles, all,
> 
> I'm not a SC member, so my opinion should not be understood as voting.
> 
> Thorsten Behrens schrieb:
> > Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> >> The French Association La Mouette, co-organising the LibreOffice
> >> Conference and representing the french speaking community, is
> >> drafting a pamphlet / brochure to be handed out to some specific
> >> audience (CIOs - CTOs of specific sectors) . La Mouette is asking
> >> us the authorization to use the full TDF/LibreOffice logo (with
> >> the TDF outline).
> 
> La Mouette is the NGO representing the Francophone community.
> 
> My question is: Are they part of this community or are they a
> different entity consisting of the same people?


hmm; it's fair to say that they represent the francophone community.
They were the previous OOo french association.

> 
> As different entity they should *not* use the official logo dedicated
> to the community and TDF alone.
> 
> But if the French community creates a pamphlet that is printed and 
> distributed by La Mouette, they have the right to use the full logo.
> >>
> >> I would like to ask the SC to answer positively to this request.
> >> This does not preclude us, however to start this "NGOs committee"
> >> we talked about in 2010 and work with them on collaboration on the
> >> local level, as this is only one specific question about a
> >> brochure.
> >>
> > Hi Charles,
> >
> > if this brochure is positively advertizing TDF/LibreOffice, I see no
> > reason not to endorse it with our official logo - I understand it's
> > presented as kind of a supportive quote from TDF?
> 
> Even if the brochure advertises TDF/LibreOffice in the most positive 
> light, this doesn't mean that we should allow external entities to 
> behave as if they were the community or TDF.
> 
> Advertising LibreOffice can be done without any negative impact by
> using the logo without TDF subline.
> 
> And for advertising TDF we don't have any rules by now (and no logo 
> different from the LibreOffice logo with subline).
> 
> So my take in this question would be:
> 
> Have the brochure created by the French community on their list and
> let La Mouette distribute it. In this case the brochure is an
> official resource of the community and therefore allowed to use the
> logo with subline.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Bernhard
> 
> PS: If La Mouette is set up as part of the community, this topic
> would be much easier, but I don't know if their statutes contain such
> a phrase...
> 

I would still grant them the right to use the logo, but as I wrote in
my proposal, other conventions/protocols need to be discussed with the
NGOs. However, given the work they're helping us with, we should grant
them the right to use the logo on the brochure.

best,
Charles.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[plino]

Greg Stein wrote:
> 
>  how can you say that Apache
> "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you
> still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
> doesn't take anything from You.
> 

Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can see that :) 

Compared to GPL (which is what Apache is asking developers to give up on) it
removes the right to be given back any improvement or fix to the code you
contributed.

Since many people are doing this pro bono, I think that it is fair that at
least they retain the right to have access to any fix or improvement to
their code.

Under the Apache license any company can take your code, fix it and say:
"Hey, this function in the open source version doesn't work. I just spend a
day fixing it (instead of  months to write it from scratch). Why don't you
buy mine which works?"

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-Libreoffice-Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3043423p3071042.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted