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

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:56 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
 - Original Message 

 From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com
 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 gst...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu,  Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
  simos.li...@googlemail.com  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)

2011-06-17 Thread plino


BRM wrote:
 
 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.
 

It's amazing how you distort arguments to keep your own perspective.

What the GPL says is that whoever gives you a copy of the program is also
obliged to give you the written offer.
They can not be separated.

your friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the
binary

I don't understand how you can quote something that says the opposite of
what you are trying to prove!

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/OFF-TOPIC-about-GPL-enforcement-Was-Re-tdf-discuss-Re-Libreoffice-Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3074299p3075368.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

2011-06-17 Thread Michael Meeks

Hi Allen,

So - first, I've enjoyed interacting with you over many years around
OO.o / LibreOffice :-) and I value many of your insights.

On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 10:43 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
  Thorsten Behrens wrote:
..
 I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice 
 project is a competing project.

The overlap between TDF  ASF's goals for an office product (modulo
enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.
SUV manufacturers compete with hybrid car vendors for mindshare,
marketshare etc. despite having somewhat different product emphasis. I
think you need to re-consider your argument comparing python with OO.o
with LibreOffice here - they are simply not comparable as a proportion
of each other, and as sources of bugs / problems etc.

 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.

Joining is one thing - fair enough for some to be included. But
knowingly making life harder for LibreOffice by contributing code to ASF
and thus helping the code-bases to diverge is a different thing.

 Here's what could have been:

Hypothetical different worlds don't always work out so swimmingly in
real life.

 Instead, due to your personal issues

You appear to assert the conclusion to your argument. Personally, I
have a great deal of respect for Thorsten - his substantial raw
contribution, his judgement and so on. I don't believe he has
substantial personal issues on this topic :-)

 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.

There are many motivations for not working with the ASF, sure you can
cherry pick some that are some transient soreness from having done a ton
of work for OO.o, then seeing our views ignored, our governance
duplicated and our wise licensing choices crippled. Certainly some
people would feel offended by being told what to do, and what is and is
not possible by many new faces that have never contributed a single
thing to the project :-) That is not a surprise, just human nature - and
as you point out it is not really a good reason to do anything:
proposals (no matter how poorly articulated) should be evaluated on
their merits. I don't believe we are deciding this sort of thing on that
basis however.

There are a multitude of good business, ethical, pragmatic, structural
and common-sense problems with wholeheartedly embracing IBM's move
facilitated by the ASF. Those are the ones that are worth discussing.
Having said that - personally, I don't believe that any of these issues
is susceptible to negotiation, ASF is what it is - and arguably WYSIWYG
- it was chosen primarily because it structurally cannot change any of
these things. Ergo, (as I've said) engaging with it on the basis that
change is possible is not a productive use of time. My plan is to simply
wait and see whether the promised benefits of AL2 arrive, that seems the
only sensible course of action as of now.

 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).

We could also have severely confused our contributor-base, and landed
them in the ASF's lap: code and all, substantially contributing to a
vision of the world that I find pragmatically unhelpful for software
freedom, and driving away another great chunk of our contributors. Sure
- it would have been only a few simple actions to assure that outcome,
to me though that medicine is far worse than the problem it supposedly
fixes. Ultimately, to me - the people doing the work are more valuable
than gold-dust around here; which is just one reason why I love, and
listen carefully to Thorsten: he is such an effective hacker.

 So my all means, continue forward with your decision that your
 personal story is what really matters.

Software freedom is built on the work of countless un-sung heroes
investing their time and effort to build something better. I like their
stories. To try to totally de-couple cold/calculating software decisions
from real flesh and blood relationships in a community project is going
to be doomed to failure. Having said that, I am optimistic that focusing
on product excellence via a fun community of developers - particularly
in a market with a low marginal cost of migration will ultimately lead
to both success for LibreOffice, and a single united project again in
the long run.

But - beyond this, I don't think any good purpose is solved in
discussing it acrimoniously and at length.

All the best,

Michael.

-- 
 michael.me...@novell.com  , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


--

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

DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it.

- Original Message 

 From: plino pedl...@gmail.com
 BRM wrote:
  
  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.
  
 
 It's amazing how you distort arguments  to keep your own perspective.
 
 What the GPL says is that whoever gives you  a copy of the program is also
 obliged to give you the written offer.
 They  can not be separated.
 
 your friend must give you a copy of the offer  along with a copy of the
 binary
 
 I don't understand how you can quote  something that says the opposite of
 what you are trying to  prove!

Here's the mythical situation:

Group A makes a product - B - that is under the GPL.
Group C takes that product and makes product 'D' - also under the GPL - but 
only 
releases it to their customers for a fee. (Perfectly valid!)
Group C provides the written notice to said customers; but does not make it 
publically available to non-customers. (Perfectly valid!)
Customer E provides a copy with written notice to Party F.
Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he received 
from Customer E which matches what Group C provided to Customer E.

The above is what the FSF states - in what I referenced - is required.

Now, suppose there is another party in the mythical situation:

Customer E also provide a copy _without_ written notice to Party G.

Customer E violated the GPL by not providing the written notice to Party G; 
however, as a result Party G has no recourse against Group C.
Their recourse is first against Customer E for not providing the written 
notice; 
at which point they can then approach Group C just like Party F did.

However in both cases, if a Party H who has not received any distribution from 
Group C either directly (e.g. Customer E) or indirectly (e.g. Party F and Party 
G) decides they want a copy of the source for product D produced by Group C 
then the GPL has not taken effect - there was no distribution involved with 
respect to Party H, and Group C owes nothing to Party H. Remember, GPL only 
takes affect at point of Distribution.

That does not mean that Group C may not be honorable and provide the source for 
product 'D' to Party H any way, but there is no requirement in the GPL to do so.

BTW - the FSF also addresses the issue of if Party H obtained a distribution 
illegally, and states that Party H in such case may have to wait until they 
exit 
prison to be able to then be act on the distribution clause. 
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy)

I am not twisting anything, and I could have referenced several other FAQ 
entries on the FSF website as well - just chose the one most relevant - one 
explicitly stating the from the FSF's perspective that the party asking for the 
source must also have the written notice. It may not be a popular view - in 
that 
you all may not like it. That does not necessarily mean that it is therefore 
incorrect - it is quite correct with regards to reading the GPL, and the 
various 
information the FSF has published on it.

So just b/c a company does not provide the source to everyone under the sun 
does 
not mean they are in violation of the GPL.

Note that the above situation also matches this FAQ entry:

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

The _written offer_ must be provided and valid for any third party who has 
received the distribution. If you haven't received the distribution directly or 
indirectly then it is not valid for you as no distribution was involved.

Indeed, you can also look at 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary - it only has to be 
available to the users.

Please, if you are going to try to refute this at least quote from the FSF, 
Lessig, or SFLC to do so - they (and not 'gpl-violations.org' )are the authors 
of the GPL.

That doesn't mean that 'gpl-violations.org' is not providing a useful service, 
or don't necessarily have a very good understanding of the license. But they 
are 
primarily acting on behalf of people that do have that written offer, or are 
helping to enforce that people receive that written offer when one was not 
made. 
If a company is in compliance - even if it is not a way that you necessarily 
like - then there is nothing gpl-violations.org can do - they are in 
compliance. 
As it is you haven't even quoted anything from them to refute what I have said 
- 
and there is nothing on their website about it either. Still, they are less 
authoritative on the matter than FSF, Lessig, and SFLC - from which I _have_ 
quoted, and extensively at that. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com
 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 they are

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

2011-06-17 Thread Jim Jagielski


On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
 
   The overlap between TDF  ASF's goals for an office product (modulo
 enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.

I disagree... competition implies a winner and a loser...
in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market Share? Feh. When
you start looking at it that way, then what makes FOSS FOSS
kinda gets overlooked.

The intent of FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide
freedom and choices to end-users. If having 2 competing implementations
means that a larger set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms
and choices than if there was only 1 implementation, then the
competition is most valid.

It's being complementary, not competitive.


-- 
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)

2011-06-17 Thread plino

@BRM sorry to burst your fantasy world...

We are not discussing some theoretical situation with A, B, C, D, etc

This topic and this forum is about a PUBLIC free office suite (yes, I
noticed you deliberately ignored my argument)

In this case the GPL clearly says that the written license MUST be
distributed with the program. Period.

Arguing that someone might not obey to that requirement is the same as
discussing if you should pay the items in your cart at the supermarket.  Of
course you can choose not to. And if there is no security at that particular
supermarket you can also argue that no one can enforce that law. But it is
still breaking the law even if you get away with it.

Let's keep the discussion realistic (or end it).


--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/OFF-TOPIC-about-GPL-enforcement-Was-Re-tdf-discuss-Re-Libreoffice-Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3074299p3076400.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: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

- Original Message 

 From: plino pedl...@gmail.com
 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
 Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 10:12:01 AM
 Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: 
[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
 
 @BRM sorry to burst your fantasy world...
 
 We are not discussing some  theoretical situation with A, B, C, D, etc

No, that is just to help aid the conversation on the actual topic which you 
seem 
to have lost. Please go back and read the archives.
 
 This topic and this forum is  about a PUBLIC free office suite (yes, I
 noticed you deliberately ignored my  argument)

And no, I never ignored that portion of your argument. The whole discussion (so 
summarize) - which you seem to have lost - is what happens if someone takes a 
copy of that PUBLIC free office suite called TDF/LO and makes their own version 
of it, making a non-public release - a release similar to a closed source one 
that only goes to their customers - and what then happens to the changes, and 
who has standing to get the source - even under the GPL. In other words, what 
is 
to prevent IBM, Oracle, or any other similar company from making a derivation 
of 
TDF/LO and only it to their own customers? The argument presented against the 
ASL was that they could do that and that the GPL guarenteed that the community 
would get the source back from them; and the point is that it does not do that 
- 
only that their customers get that right, not the community - not TDF/LO.

 In this case the GPL clearly says that the written license MUST  be
 distributed with the program. Period.

I have never disputed that. It also says that a binary only distribution must 
be 
provided with a written offer to obtain the source, implying that the written 
offer is in addition to the copy of the license.

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

2011-06-17 Thread Keith Curtis

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:


 On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
 
The overlap between TDF  ASF's goals for an office product (modulo
  enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.

 I disagree... competition implies a winner and a loser...
 in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market Share? Feh. When
 you start looking at it that way, then what makes FOSS FOSS
 kinda gets overlooked.

 The intent of FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide
 freedom and choices to end-users. If having 2 competing implementations
 means that a larger set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms
 and choices than if there was only 1 implementation, then the
 competition is most valid.

 It's being complementary, not competitive.


I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are
bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that
doesn't make them ideal.

This is not like KOffice because that codebase is so different and missing
lots of features. No one is arguing to get rid of KOffice here, or that a
merge would be possible or makes sense.This is only about very slightly
different versions of a 10M line codebase.

Another way to think about it: what features does Apache want that
LibreOffice does *not* want? Ubuntu forked Debian because they wanted
6-month release cycles, proprietary drivers, etc. I see no list. Even if you
had a list of features LibreOffice didn't want, you could include the code
in LibreOffice and turn it off by default. OpenOffice could be LibreOffice
with different defaults. I don't think there is anything like that either.

-Keith

-- 
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

2011-06-17 Thread Jim Jagielski


On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
 
 I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are
 bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that
 doesn't make them ideal.
 

I'm not sure about that... Some forks are good, some are
bad. It's the reasons that make them either good or bad,
but the forks themselves aren't. In fact, the ability to
fork is one of the great benefits of FOSS.

OT: but, of course, numerous forks, like the uncontrolled
growth which is cancer, is bad for the community, imo.

Cheers!

-- 
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

- Original Message 

 From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com
 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
   On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
  The overlap between TDF  ASF's goals for an  office product 
(modulo
   enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty  compelling proof of competition.
 
  I disagree... competition  implies a winner and a loser...
  in FOSS, how do you measure that?  Market Share? Feh. When
  you start looking at it that way, then what  makes FOSS FOSS
  kinda gets overlooked.
 
  The intent of  FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide
  freedom and choices to  end-users. If having 2 competing implementations
  means that a larger  set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms
  and choices than if there was  only 1 implementation, then the
  competition is most  valid.
 
  It's being complementary, not  competitive.
 
 
 I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting  position that forks are
 bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes,  like war, but that
 doesn't make them ideal.

And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have been a 
necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is 
revisionist history.

 This is not like KOffice  because that codebase is so different and missing
 lots of features. No one is  arguing to get rid of KOffice here, or that a
 merge would be possible or  makes sense.This is only about very slightly
 different versions of a 10M line  codebase.

No it is not. But KOffice does provide a very good example of this.

KOffice recently had a fork - Calligra - that most all of the development team 
moved to as the KOffice proper was not being properly managed. Very similar to 
to the OOo vs TDF/LO situation.

Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a 
much 
healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with each 
other either.
 
 Another way to think about it: what features does Apache want  that
 LibreOffice does *not* want? Ubuntu forked Debian because they  wanted
 6-month release cycles, proprietary drivers, etc. I see no list. Even  if you
 had a list of features LibreOffice didn't want, you could include the  code
 in LibreOffice and turn it off by default. OpenOffice could be  LibreOffice
 with different defaults. I don't think there is anything like  that either.

The real question is - since TDF/LO is the real fork, what does LibreOffice 
want 
that Oracle did not, and that Apache does not?
And that is primarily the LGPL+MPL.

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

2011-06-17 Thread Keith Curtis

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:

 And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have
 been a
 necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
 revisionist history.


LO was a fork, but that was the for many months ago.



 Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a
 much
 healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with
 each
 other either.



I didn't know the details of the Calligra fork but I did a bit of
researching. It seems like it was created because ONE person was causing
problems (http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2010/12/rose-by-any-other-name.html) so
the rest moved. However, if everyone but one moves, it is not really a fork,
but a mutiny / change in leadership.

-Keith

-- 
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

2011-06-17 Thread drew

On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 08:46 -0700, Keith Curtis wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
  And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have
  been a
  necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
  revisionist history.
 
 
 LO was a fork, but that was the for many months ago.

Yes and the transfer of OpenOffice.org to Apache is just that, a
transfer.

I'd add only one other comment - One doesn't have to like something in
order to accept or acknowledge it.

Best wishes,

Drew Jensen


-- 
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)

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
 DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it.

...
 Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he received
 from Customer E which matches what Group C provided to Customer E.


I think your misconception arises from the fact that you consider a company
can collude with the customers and ask them to keep secret
those written notices they received. Without these written
notices, a third party
would not be able to get the source code?

It's not a written notice; it is a written offer by a company to
make available
the source code to anyone who asks.

...

 I am not twisting anything, and I could have referenced several other FAQ
 entries on the FSF website as well - just chose the one most relevant - one
 explicitly stating the from the FSF's perspective that the party asking for 
 the
 source must also have the written notice.

You are describing a company that tries to get away with the responsibilities
of the GPL by denying that they have made a written offer for the source code,
by colluding with customers not to divulge the mention of the GPL in
the said products.
So, if I go and buy one such GPL product from the company, would the company
refuse to sell me in order not to export the written offer?


 So just b/c a company does not provide the source to everyone under the sun 
 does
 not mean they are in violation of the GPL.

 Note that the above situation also matches this FAQ entry:

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


Which says: “If you choose to provide source through a written offer,
then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive
it.”

It's the opposite of what you have just said.

...

 Please, if you are going to try to refute this at least quote from the FSF,
 Lessig, or SFLC to do so - they (and not 'gpl-violations.org' )are the authors
 of the GPL.


Your views are not mainstream; if you want to gain traction, you
should make the effort
to subscribe to the gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these
views there.

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)

- Original Message 

 From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com
 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
   DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need  it.
 
 ...
  Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the  written notice he 
received
  from Customer E which matches what Group C  provided to Customer E.
 
 
 I think your misconception arises from  the fact that you consider a company
 can collude with the customers and ask  them to keep secret
 those written notices they received. Without these  written
 notices, a third party
 would not be able to get the source  code?
 
 It's not a written notice; it is a written offer by a company  to
 make available
 the source code to anyone who  asks.

I never said they were colluding. No collusion was required, and no one need 
deny they were providing GPL'd products.
If you want, you could change out every group/party/company in that scenario to 
be individual people - it doesn't change a thing wrt to the GPL.
It also doesn't entitle someone who has not received a copy of the product to 
receiving a copy of the source code.
 
 ...
 
  I am not twisting anything, and I could have  referenced several other FAQ
  entries on the FSF website as well - just  chose the one most relevant - one
  explicitly stating the from the FSF's  perspective that the party asking 
  for 
the
  source must also have the  written notice.
 
 You are describing a company that tries to get away with  the responsibilities
 of the GPL by denying that they have made a written  offer for the source 
code,
 by colluding with customers not to divulge the  mention of the GPL in
 the said products.
 So, if I go and buy one such GPL  product from the company, would the company
 refuse to sell me in order not to  export the written offer?

If you have a the GPL'd product, then you have the right to get the source.
If not, you don't.

If you received it second hand - e.g. indirectly - then you still have the 
right 
to the source, but you may have to show the product or written offer.
 

  So just b/c a company does not  provide the source to everyone under the 
  sun 
does
  not mean they are in  violation of the GPL.
 
  Note that the above situation also matches  this FAQ entry:
 
   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
 
 
 Which  says: “If you choose to provide source through a written offer,
 then anybody  who requests the source from you is entitled to receive
 it.”
 It's the  opposite of what you have just said.

No, it implies (or rather, another FAQ entry - I forget which off hand - 
states) 
that you need the written offer as well.
So as long as you provide a copy of the written offer, they are required to 
provide it to you.
Said written offer being acquired either directly or indirectly.
 
 ...
  Please, if you  are going to try to refute this at least quote from the FSF,
  Lessig, or  SFLC to do so - they (and not 'gpl-violations.org' )are the  
authors
  of the GPL.
 
 
 Your views are not mainstream; if you  want to gain traction, you should make 
the effort
 to subscribe to the  gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these views  
there.

Doesn't have to be mainstream. As I said - there is a very common misconception 
on the issue.

It's not a mainstream view that GPL'd software be charged for too (people - 
especially GPL people - like getting stuff for free as in beer) - yet, FSF 
states that's perfectly acceptable to do as its not about Free as in beer 
(that's a good thing) but free as in speech.

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

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
 - Original Message 

 From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com
...
 Your views are not mainstream; if you  want to gain traction, you should make
the effort
 to subscribe to the  gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these views
there.

 Doesn't have to be mainstream. As I said - there is a very common 
 misconception
 on the issue.


I have moved the discussion to the gpl-violations legal mailing list,
http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2011-June/002872.html

Anyone can subscribe at http://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

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)

2011-06-17 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Ignoring the repetition on who is entitled to source code and how they are told 
about it, I would like to know the answers to some very specific, tangible 
matters closer to home.  My question is basically whether the terms of a GPL 
license attached to a software distribution are applicable to that software 
distribution, not just downstream derivatives of it.  I assume the answer is 
yes.

 - Dennis

WHY I ASK

I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2 installed on my computer.  I am looking for 
any place that I am offered access to the specific (or, indeed, any) source 
code for the LibreOffice 3.3.2 distribution that I have installed (en-win-x86).

Looking at the Help | License Information ... tells me about licenses and where 
to find them, but nothing about source code.  If I give this to my friends, 
none of them will see anything about source code either.

If I examine the license, I see that LGPL3 incorporates terms of the GPL3 by 
reference, and license follows immediately thereafter.  The LGPL3 has 
definitions about source code and it being conveyed.  The GPL3 has the details.

The preface to the GPL sys that 

Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

Section 6, which applies to the non-source form of the LibreOffice 3.3.2 that I 
installed specifies a number of ways that source code is still to be made 
available.  6(d) seems applicable to the way I obtained LibreOffice 3.3.2 by 
download:

d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis 
or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in 
the same way through the same place at no further charge. ...

SO WHERE IS IT?

I know of no offer conveyed with the code.

If I go back to the site, all I see are 3.3.3 Final and 3.4.0 Final.  I see 
nothing that would allow me to re-retrieve or find the source of the 3.3.2 that 
I have in my possession.

If I follow the Download the source code to build your own installer (why 
does that have to be the reason?), I see a set of logs that tell me nothing.  
Under 3.4.1.1, 3.4.0.2, and 3.3.3.1 I see lists of 20-21 tar.bz2's.  

Well, maybe that qualifies.  Maybe not.  But what about for my 3.3.2?

AND ABOUT THOSE DEPENDENCIES

If any of the listed dependencies also have derivatives used, is there some 
place where, ahem, those modified sources are available in some suitable way?





-Original Message-
From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 13:49
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: 
[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
 - Original Message 

 From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com
...
 Your views are not mainstream; if you  want to gain traction, you should make
the effort
 to subscribe to the  gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these views
there.

 Doesn't have to be mainstream. As I said - there is a very common 
 misconception
 on the issue.


I have moved the discussion to the gpl-violations legal mailing list,
http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2011-June/002872.html

Anyone can subscribe at http://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

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


-- 
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

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

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
 Ignoring the repetition on who is entitled to source code and how they are 
 told about it, I would like to know the answers to some very specific, 
 tangible matters closer to home.  My question is basically whether the terms 
 of a GPL license attached to a software distribution are applicable to that 
 software distribution, not just downstream derivatives of it.  I assume the 
 answer is yes.

  - Dennis

 WHY I ASK

 I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2 installed on my computer.  I am looking 
 for any place that I am offered access to the specific (or, indeed, any) 
 source code for the LibreOffice 3.3.2 distribution that I have installed 
 (en-win-x86).


Admittedly, I never checked the UI text as to where you can get the
source code.

To build LibreOffice, I would simply follow the instructions at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build
which cover different operating systems.

By following the instructions, you create a local repository of the
source code,
and this repository has *all* versions of LibreOffice (such as 3.3.2
and 3.4.0) and you can select which to build.
It should take you a few hours of downloading + compilation to create
your own LibreOffice.
If you have a fast Internet speed and a good computer, it should take
you about 3 hours of compilation.

Your question is actually about whether we can make the Help→License
information more informative
so that users who would like to build LibreOffice, will get directed
to the How_to_build page.

 Looking at the Help | License Information ... tells me about licenses and 
 where to find them, but nothing about source code.  If I give this to my 
 friends, none of them will see anything about source code either.

 If I examine the license, I see that LGPL3 incorporates terms of the GPL3 by 
 reference, and license follows immediately thereafter.  The LGPL3 has 
 definitions about source code and it being conveyed.  The GPL3 has the 
 details.

 The preface to the GPL sys that

 Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
 have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
 them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
 want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
 free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

 Section 6, which applies to the non-source form of the LibreOffice 3.3.2 that 
 I installed specifies a number of ways that source code is still to be made 
 available.  6(d) seems applicable to the way I obtained LibreOffice 3.3.2 by 
 download:

 d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis 
 or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in 
 the same way through the same place at no further charge. ...

 SO WHERE IS IT?

 I know of no offer conveyed with the code.

 If I go back to the site, all I see are 3.3.3 Final and 3.4.0 Final.  I see 
 nothing that would allow me to re-retrieve or find the source of the 3.3.2 
 that I have in my possession.

 If I follow the Download the source code to build your own installer (why 
 does that have to be the reason?), I see a set of logs that tell me nothing.  
 Under 3.4.1.1, 3.4.0.2, and 3.3.3.1 I see lists of 20-21 tar.bz2's.

 Well, maybe that qualifies.  Maybe not.  But what about for my 3.3.2?


Indeed, the 3.3.2 version is not showing, because there are newer
versions (3.4.1, 3.4.0 and 3.3.3) and the 3.3.2 does not fit to be in
that page.
You can get 3.3.2 files at
http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/
http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/src/

As I said earlier, if you really want to compile, you would go for the
'git repositories' and the instructions at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build

 AND ABOUT THOSE DEPENDENCIES

 If any of the listed dependencies also have derivatives used, is there some 
 place where, ahem, those modified sources are available in some suitable way?


See the dependencies at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build#Dependencies

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

2011-06-17 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

I didn't say I didn't know how to do it.  I didn't say I wanted to build it.  
This is about honoring the spirit of the free software promise.  It is not even 
about building the code.  People may want to do any number of things with the 
source code (inspect for bugs, for example).

I *did* say I don't see where the distro tells me how to find it and I don't 
see where the download page lets me find it in the same way (and now I can't 
even find the version that I am running). 20-21 tar.bz's are also rather 
intimidating, but way better than nothing.

So, where is the link on the web site that would let me find the version I am 
running and the source code for it?  (The same question for dependency 
derivatives is a bonus question.)

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 16:31
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement 
(Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
[ ... ]
 I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2 installed on my computer.  I am looking 
 for any place that I am offered access to the specific (or, indeed, any) 
 source code for the LibreOffice 3.3.2 distribution that I have installed 
 (en-win-x86).


Admittedly, I never checked the UI text as to where you can get the
source code.

To build LibreOffice, I would simply follow the instructions at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build
which cover different operating systems.

[ ... ]

Your question is actually about whether we can make the Help→License
information more informative
so that users who would like to build LibreOffice, will get directed
to the How_to_build page.

[ ... ]

 If I follow the Download the source code to build your own installer (why 
 does that have to be the reason?), I see a set of logs that tell me nothing.  
 Under 3.4.1.1, 3.4.0.2, and 3.3.3.1 I see lists of 20-21 tar.bz2's.

 Well, maybe that qualifies.  Maybe not.  But what about for my 3.3.2?


Indeed, the 3.3.2 version is not showing, because there are newer
versions (3.4.1, 3.4.0 and 3.3.3) and the 3.3.2 does not fit to be in
that page.
You can get 3.3.2 files at
http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/
http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/src/

As I said earlier, if you really want to compile, you would go for the
'git repositories' and the instructions at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build

 AND ABOUT THOSE DEPENDENCIES

 If any of the listed dependencies also have derivatives used, is there some 
 place where, ahem, those modified sources are available in some suitable way?


See the dependencies at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build#Dependencies

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


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

Simos

I *did* say I don't see where the distro tells me how to find it and I don't
see where the download page lets me find it in the same way (and now I
can't even find the version that I am running). 20-21 tar.bz's are also
rather intimidating, but way better than nothing.

So, where is the link on the web site that would let me find the version I am
running and the source code for it? (The same question for dependency
derivatives is a bonus question.)

- Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 16:31
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL
enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
OpenOffice))

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
[ ... ]
I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2 installed on my computer. I am looking
for any place that I am offered access to the specific (or, indeed, any)
source code for the LibreOffice 3.3.2 distribution that I have installed
(en-win-x86).

Admittedly, I never checked the UI text as to where you can get the
source code.

To build LibreOffice, I would simply follow the instructions at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build
which cover different operating systems.

[ ... ]

Your question is actually about whether we can make the Help→License
information more informative
so that users who would like to build LibreOffice, will get directed
to the How_to_build page.

[ ... ]

If I follow the Download the source code to build your own installer (why
does that have to be the reason?), I see a set of logs that tell me nothing.
Under 3.4.1.1, 3.4.0.2, and 3.3.3.1 I see lists of 20-21 tar.bz2's.

Well, maybe that qualifies. Maybe not. But what about for my 3.3.2?

Indeed, the 3.3.2 version is not showing, because there are newer
versions (3.4.1, 3.4.0 and 3.3.3) and the 3.3.2 does not fit to be in
that page.
You can get 3.3.2 files at
http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/
http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/src/

As I said earlier, if you really want to compile, you would go for the
'git repositories' and the instructions at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build

AND ABOUT THOSE DEPENDENCIES

If any of the listed dependencies also have derivatives used, is there some
place where, ahem, those modified sources are available in some suitable way?

See the dependencies at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build#Dependencies

Simos

--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?

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

2011-06-16 Thread Augustine Souza

On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org 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: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

2011-06-16 Thread 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 aesouza2...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org 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

2011-06-16 Thread 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] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

- Original Message 

 From: plino pedl...@gmail.com
 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

2011-06-16 Thread 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

2011-06-16 Thread 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

2011-06-16 Thread 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

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

2011-06-16 Thread 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

2011-06-16 Thread 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

2011-06-16 Thread 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

2011-06-16 Thread Simos Xenitellis

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org 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

2011-06-16 Thread Robert Derman


Augustine Souza wrote:

On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org 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

- Original Message 

 From: plino pedl...@gmail.com
 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

2011-06-16 Thread 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

2011-06-16 Thread Greg Stein

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:27, plino pedl...@gmail.com 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

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

2011-06-16 Thread Greg Stein

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra pie...@zanstra.eu 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

2011-06-16 Thread 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 pedl...@gmail.com 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

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

2011-06-16 Thread todd rme

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com 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 pedl...@gmail.com 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

2011-06-16 Thread Robert Derman


Greg Stein wrote:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra pie...@zanstra.eu 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

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 pulsi...@openoffice.org 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

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

+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 pie...@zanstra.eu 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

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

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 pedl...@gmail.com 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://wiki.documentfoundation.org

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

- Original Message 

 From: todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com
 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 gst...@gmail.com 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 pedl...@gmail.com  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] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

2011-06-16 Thread Simos Xenitellis

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:49 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com 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

2011-06-16 Thread 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

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

2011-06-16 Thread Simos Xenitellis

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
 simos.li...@googlemail.com 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

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

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