Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate? I've outlined two here: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06542.html I will also note that these options are not mutually exclusive. There could be a small core of close cooperation and a large amount of code which could be the basis for the relicensing aspirations that I have heard expressed numereous times on this list. S. - Sam Ruby -- 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
On 6/5/11 6:14 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: It is, agreed. Maybe I am just somewhat of an optimist that I believe even pure idealogical stakeholders can find common ground and that nothing is inevitable. Hi Jim, I have posted a message on the general@incubator mailing list, but I haven't seen it going through, where I was trying to point out that no one has got the end user POV. I'm first and foremost an end user, so I'm not concerned about the license as far this doesn't allow corporations like IBM to keep their predatory attitude vs end users. So, my stance for copyleft is very practical: proprietary software predates basic end users, like myself, obfuscating problems and code, and I think that the only way to avoid this is to force corporations to use copyleft (I know, they'll never accept, but at ths point I prefer them to pay for all the development and related activities). No ideology here, just a weak individual (like many) against a borg. Ciao, Italo -- 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
On 5 June 2011 17:15, Sam Ruby ru...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate? I've outlined two here: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06542.html I will also note that these options are not mutually exclusive. There could be a small core of close cooperation and a large amount of code which could be the basis for the relicensing aspirations that I have heard expressed numereous times on this list. What would be interesting to know is how many of the core individual developers working on LO that provide say 80% of the development resource would be willing to work on code that would be under the AL? If they are doing it on their employer's time would the employer agree? This would give a better idea of how much scope there was for common code development. It might be too early to expect to know this - some might want more time to make up their minds and of course developers can come and go. It just seems to me that without this information we are speculating on things that are indeterminate. -- 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
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think you mean the same thing when you say symmetric as the people here mean. As far as I can see, you are talking about the ability to use the code being symmetrical, while the LibreOffice people are talking about the contribution to the software being symmetrical. You seem to be saying that Apache is symmetric because if you use the software, you have to let others use it too. But what the LibreOffice people here are expecting is that if you make improvements to the project, you have to let others make use of those improvements as well. Your talk about the use being symmetric is not going to convince people because that isn't what their complaint is about. They are fundamentally different and contradictory philosophies. Just telling people that it fits well with your philosophy, which is essentially what you are doing, doesn't help when they disagree with your philosophy. You need to either convince them that your philosophy is better than theirs, or you need to convince them it fits with their philosophy. Hi Todd, There is a third option. That is that something you believe in needs something else you don't believe in in order to be achieved. It leaves a dilemma. Some people switched a stance of anti-nuclear power because now they believe it's better than CO2 emissions. It's not that they are suddenly pro-nuclear. To run with your analogy, the problem is that your arguments are based on the assumption that nuclear power is better than CO2 emissions, and you base all your arguments on that assumption, when the group you are trying to convince is made up of refugees from Chernobyl. That was my whole point: you jumped straight to making arguments without finding out what people think about assumptions those arguments are rely on. People won't accept your arguments if they don't agree with your assumptions This isn't a hypothetical point, I think it is the reason why people haven't been receptive to your proposals. Before trying to iron out the details, I think it is important to take a step back and take a look to the core areas of disagreement first. As long as those aren't ironed out nothing is going to get accomplished on this thread will go on forever. My position is that an open ODF file format ubiquitously proliferated is the top prize. If that means using some licenses that are less than ideal from a philosophy point of view then so be it. The ultimate prize is too valuable to risk. I don't expect all copylefters to agree with me but I think it is a legitimate position that needs consideration. It isn't just copylefters. What about people who are more concerned with making a great office suite than making a file format? As I user I am quite terrified by this paragraph, actually. openOffice is currently the only usable open-source office suite from my perspective (although Calligra is catching up fast). If the focus is on the file format and not the program, how much are you willing to sacrifice on the program to make sure the file format succeeds? Once again, this is a pretty fundamental issue that needs to be worked out before there can be any hope of coming to an agreement. So I think it is better to just outright drop the discussion of collaborations or merger for now and first focus on what the positions of the two communities are these sorts of core issues, how flexible each side is on their stances, and how these stances might complement or interfere with each other. Only then should you start looking at how to proceed in a more practical manner. It may be that something radically different than what anyone is thinking now may come about. For instance, LO has more experience with applications, while Apache has more experience with projects. Similarly, based on what you are saying Apache seems more focused on the format while LO is more focused on the programs. Then perhaps rather than merging the two projects or directly competing, Apache could focus their work on making a great file format and a bare-bones reference implementation, taking ideas from all the ODF implementations out there, and LO could focus more on making a highly-tuned, full-featured office suite. The LGPL and Apache license, at least based on my superficial knowledge, would also seem to be well-suited to their respective roles in this system. That way, the two communities do what they do best, there is no conflict between them, no one has to compromise on their philosophies or pragmatic stances, no one gets alienated from any project, so everyone wins. That is likely not the way things ultimately go. It is merely an example of an approach that people on both sides are likely to miss because no one took a step back and made a comprehensive and realistic assessment of the issues going into this process. -Todd -- Unsubscribe
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
sorry, please disregard this. I got the subject messed up somehow On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:01 PM, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think you mean the same thing when you say symmetric as the people here mean. As far as I can see, you are talking about the ability to use the code being symmetrical, while the LibreOffice people are talking about the contribution to the software being symmetrical. You seem to be saying that Apache is symmetric because if you use the software, you have to let others use it too. But what the LibreOffice people here are expecting is that if you make improvements to the project, you have to let others make use of those improvements as well. Your talk about the use being symmetric is not going to convince people because that isn't what their complaint is about. They are fundamentally different and contradictory philosophies. Just telling people that it fits well with your philosophy, which is essentially what you are doing, doesn't help when they disagree with your philosophy. You need to either convince them that your philosophy is better than theirs, or you need to convince them it fits with their philosophy. Hi Todd, There is a third option. That is that something you believe in needs something else you don't believe in in order to be achieved. It leaves a dilemma. Some people switched a stance of anti-nuclear power because now they believe it's better than CO2 emissions. It's not that they are suddenly pro-nuclear. To run with your analogy, the problem is that your arguments are based on the assumption that nuclear power is better than CO2 emissions, and you base all your arguments on that assumption, when the group you are trying to convince is made up of refugees from Chernobyl. That was my whole point: you jumped straight to making arguments without finding out what people think about assumptions those arguments are rely on. People won't accept your arguments if they don't agree with your assumptions This isn't a hypothetical point, I think it is the reason why people haven't been receptive to your proposals. Before trying to iron out the details, I think it is important to take a step back and take a look to the core areas of disagreement first. As long as those aren't ironed out nothing is going to get accomplished on this thread will go on forever. My position is that an open ODF file format ubiquitously proliferated is the top prize. If that means using some licenses that are less than ideal from a philosophy point of view then so be it. The ultimate prize is too valuable to risk. I don't expect all copylefters to agree with me but I think it is a legitimate position that needs consideration. It isn't just copylefters. What about people who are more concerned with making a great office suite than making a file format? As I user I am quite terrified by this paragraph, actually. openOffice is currently the only usable open-source office suite from my perspective (although Calligra is catching up fast). If the focus is on the file format and not the program, how much are you willing to sacrifice on the program to make sure the file format succeeds? Once again, this is a pretty fundamental issue that needs to be worked out before there can be any hope of coming to an agreement. So I think it is better to just outright drop the discussion of collaborations or merger for now and first focus on what the positions of the two communities are these sorts of core issues, how flexible each side is on their stances, and how these stances might complement or interfere with each other. Only then should you start looking at how to proceed in a more practical manner. It may be that something radically different than what anyone is thinking now may come about. For instance, LO has more experience with applications, while Apache has more experience with projects. Similarly, based on what you are saying Apache seems more focused on the format while LO is more focused on the programs. Then perhaps rather than merging the two projects or directly competing, Apache could focus their work on making a great file format and a bare-bones reference implementation, taking ideas from all the ODF implementations out there, and LO could focus more on making a highly-tuned, full-featured office suite. The LGPL and Apache license, at least based on my superficial knowledge, would also seem to be well-suited to their respective roles in this system. That way, the two communities do what they do best, there is no conflict between them, no one has to compromise on their philosophies or pragmatic stances, no one gets alienated from any project, so everyone wins. That is likely not the way things ultimately go. It is merely an example of an approach that
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: I'm first and foremost an end user, so I'm not concerned about the license as far this doesn't allow corporations like IBM to keep their predatory attitude vs end users. So, my stance for copyleft is very practical: proprietary software predates basic end users, like myself, obfuscating problems and code, and I think that the only way to avoid this is to force corporations to use copyleft (I know, they'll never accept, but at ths point I prefer them to pay for all the development and related activities). Well, my opinion is that by having a non-copyleft version available, it removes the incentive for commercial entities to create their own versions, which will be obviously totally proprietary. Putting it another way, if the only open source version is copyleft, then you will not see commercial entities use it, simply because it requires their own secret sauce bits to be forcibly donated. So they won't use it at all and, instead, create their own from scratch. And there is risk associated with that... See http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html especially the 'Why Apache Software is Free' version. -- 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 have been involved with OpenOffice.org since 1.1 or so, before .odf. I am glad that Apache Foundation will have control of the code. For me personally, the ownership of the code never caused a problem. I had good experiences with all the Sun employees with whom I got to interact when we moved the openoffice.org support web site and infrastructure in-house. There were plenty of chicken-little discussion when we were doing it, however it turned out well. I wonder if we will be migrating the support pages to AF, and I have been grateful for the generally gracious behaviour of Oracle. It is important to not take any of these decisions personally. Larry Ellison never asks me for input on his corporate decisions, and I am alright with that. I think the question is how are end-users' experiences going to change resultant of the code transfer to AF. Linux users are being offered bundled LO. Is there any reason to assume AF will bury OO.o? I suggest there is no evidence of that. Cheers Wolf Halton -- 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
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote: * I find it extremely arrogant and insulting for a project that hasn't even built anything yet to self-proclaim itself as 'upstream'. What project is that please? I am confused. thanks mike -- 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
Hi! If I understand correctly: What is developed by the Apache license can be used at LibreOffice but what is done by LibreOffice can not be used by OpenOffice as OpenOffice would move to offer the principles of under the GPL. Thus, the suggestion would be to join efforts to OpenOffice under the Apache License and used what we want to use LibreOffice GPL? Am I wrong or so workers would be free for companies that want to pack the OpenOffice and sell it? I would understand this point... Greats, Eduardo Alexandre Gula LibreOffice Brazil 2011/6/4 Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org And finally, whether it would make any sense from the technical point of view for LibreOffice contributors to even try to participate in OOo at ASF depends very much on what actually ends up there, and in what direction it is taken by the presumed main driving force, IBM. For all we know, it might be that the code that is eventually dumped in ASF's SVN (!) is a subset that doesn't even build, and then IBM starts adding its own hitherto proprietary stuff including build mechanisms that makes it into a completely different beast than what we are used to. I suspect lots of Java is involved, and that is not necessarily that popular around here. As if understanding and using the old OOo build mechanisms which have been somewhat adapted at LO wasn't hard enough. Good point, Tor. Is the source code available somewhere already? I wouldn't join any Open Source project if I can't see the source code first :) -- Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org Document Foundation founding member Mobile: +34 661 11 38 26 Skype: jcorrius | Twitter: @jcorrius -- 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
Hi, Am Samstag, den 04.06.2011, 01:30 -0600 schrieb Tor Lillqvist: So here is my suggestion: I propose the everyone here head over to the Apache Incubator and join the proposal as an initial member. Well, at least for me the problem is: I *work* on LibreOffice. although I am not a real contributor to LibreOffice so that my decisions do not make a difference here are some of my thoughts from a completely different perspective. I am not paid by anyone in this field, I have no interested in going that road, I have no business around Office Suites, do not offer trainings or am engaged in any consulting. So every minute I spend on LibreOffice is because of fun with no hard revenue in sight and if it is for fun at least for me it is important with whom to work together. Do I trust the TDF/SC? uff, kind of Do I trust the ASF? absolutely Do I trust Novell/RedHat/Canonical/.. a bit Do I trust IBM? ... Do I trust Oracle? absolutely not The nice thing about the LGPL and copyleft is that it lowers the need for trusting the other involved parties. As I have no history with the OO.o project, I may not be correct, but I miss IBMs enthusiastic approach to a free software office suite extending what they need to develop symphony on that base. I guess they could have released a lot of patches under the apache license if they were just reluctant to the LGPL. So I have some doubts that the level between what to put in the core office, the new apache openoffice, and what to keep only for their closed source product on top of it is much in favor of the apache part. And I feel like it is not only important what the actual situation is (an ASF incubator proposal) but even more so how it got there. The situation would have been totally different for me if the OO.o community council would have approached the ASF and made this proposal and after that Oracle would have agreed and IBM hopped in. This would have been community driven. This smells like some corporate business plan with a nice apache painting. The situation now is that Oracle and IBM did some deal behind closed doors, where I am pretty sure their arguments and expectations to decide going to the ASF are not identical with what is written on the ASF wiki. Although this is the unfortunate situation that you can hardly prove it the one way or the other. So for me to join the proposal feels like becoming one of the worst paid IBM employees. But whatever, the ball is already rolling and everything will go the way it has to go. We will see the result in some months/years. And yeah, everyone will decide different depending on who pays him, what if any personal business interests he has in the office field, his political/ideological vision or just his gut feeling. Nothing wrong with that and nothing to try to change or influence. Regards, Michael -- 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
Michael Münch ha scritto: So for me to join the proposal feels like becoming one of the worst paid IBM employees. BTW, there would be some concerns about what kind of community will be the new Apache OpenOffice one too. At least, I have them. A development community, as I suppose, or a end users' community too? I was there, in 2000/1, when Sun had many doubts about releasing a open source *product* in binary form. Now, I feel we're at the same point under a Apache license. None, but the Community (What community?), would have a *real* interest in releasing a full featured open source *product* in binary form. Maybe, I'm wrong. Maybe, I'm not. Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.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
Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies. Laurence On 05/06/2011, at 8:41, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi Allen, *, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote: [...] I don't know what vision IBM has for the project. I don't know what code contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I don't know what they will be. I don't know what contributions members of the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make. Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press releases, that was ended up in OOo was basically nonexistent. As you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip service. The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/ needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!)) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support I do know this however. There is currently an open invitation for us to get involved. If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the project. Not really, as you first have to surrender to the Apache's licence terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort. We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM. Basically, we can get IBM working for us. I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing? They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the abovementioned accessibility dump. But before you say: It's not only IBM in the foundation. Then let me ask: Who else is? Oracle is gone for good. The few individual contributers that have enlisted themselves as initial contributers on the apache wiki are to a big extent non-coder. (Not to say that the non-code contributors are not important, that's far from being my point) I currently find 5 people in that list of whom I'd say the have /some/ idea of the code. And two of those already have a focus on a side-project/fork of OOo. So if you ask me who is on the Apache project who is not engaged in TDF/LO, then the only answer is: IBM. (But I'm also well aware that the proposal is new, and there might be more to come, and I'm also aware that to the apache-voting the big picture doesn't matter, they don't care whether it is considered a good idea or not. If there are enough people to run the podling and if IBM can convince them that it is possible to get rid of all the thirdparty stuff that doesn't comply with the strict licencing terms, they will approve it as an incubator project) And I don't really see a point in shifting this perception now that nobody cares who enlists. IMHO you only should enlist yourself if you're really convinced that the Apache Foundation along with its restrictions/limitations and rules, esp. regarding licencing are a good idea, when you actually support the move. If you do, then go ahead and add yourself, I won't question your decision. The only reason on why the TDF should contribute is to why neooffice did join go-oo at the time: To make grabbing their code easier. But that is a very, very weak reason in my opinion. So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as possible. If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can. What is the point? If it is run by LO people, what is the benefit of creating another entity instead of letting OOo be what it is (or better was), and instead focusing only on LibreOffice? ciao Christian -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Man, how I love fullquotes :-/ On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev ljelou...@gmail.com wrote: Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies. Sorry, but what is your point? my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just to have a say or now there are no restrictions yet. Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times that they won't allow other licenses. Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license? So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially when you write it as a f'up to my posting. ciao Christian -- 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
On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: Man, how I love fullquotes :-/ On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev ljelou...@gmail.com wrote: Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies. Sorry, but what is your point? my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just to have a say or now there are no restrictions yet. Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times that they won't allow other licenses. Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license? So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially when you write it as a f'up to my posting. If the reason to not join Apache is because you are holding out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think you are holding out for a lost, lost hope. Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle will keep :/ -- 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
So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part of ASF. Laurence On 05/06/2011, at 10:11, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: Man, how I love fullquotes :-/ On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev ljelou...@gmail.com wrote: Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies. Sorry, but what is your point? my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just to have a say or now there are no restrictions yet. Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times that they won't allow other licenses. Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license? So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially when you write it as a f'up to my posting. If the reason to not join Apache is because you are holding out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think you are holding out for a lost, lost hope. Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle will keep :/ -- 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
The ASF accepts contributions from anyone. You don't have to be part of the ASF to contribute. The ASF is a meritocracy, and so the more you do, the more you *can* do, and providing bug fixes, patches, documentation, translations are all welcome and needed contributions (as with all FOSS projects). As far as the 'Oracle won't make new licensing agreements', I am not an Oracle person, but that is the clear indication they have given me, and one will I have little doubt they mean. On that last point, btw, LOo/TDF and others (including I think IBM, although I know that there have been bad history and bad blood there) are to be commended because it was the pressure that you all provided that finally encouraged Oracle to release the s/w. That is *not* easy. When Oracle digs in their heels, they dig in deep (does Larry wear stilettos?). The fact that it wasn't a revenue source for them certainly made it easier, but a victory is a victory. Enjoy the rare one rather than look for next one ;) Cheers! On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev wrote: So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part of ASF. Laurence On 05/06/2011, at 10:11, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: Man, how I love fullquotes :-/ On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev ljelou...@gmail.com wrote: Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies. Sorry, but what is your point? my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just to have a say or now there are no restrictions yet. Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times that they won't allow other licenses. Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license? So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially when you write it as a f'up to my posting. If the reason to not join Apache is because you are holding out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think you are holding out for a lost, lost hope. Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle will keep :/ -- 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 -- 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
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:35:46AM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote: Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license? The horse is out of the barn. Oracle has submitted a signed software grant to the ASF. Once the process completes, that code becomes available under the Apache License 2.0, a *permissive*, attribution-based license. Oracle cannot now impose additional copyleft restrictions by adding a new license to the mix. Of course they could. Nobody hinders them from applying different licenses to the same code. It cannot take back the Apache License, as it cannot take back the existing LGPL, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to add another license. (but I agree with Jim that this is very, very, very unlikely to happen) Once you've granted a permissive license, you can't take it back. Yes, but that wasn't the point to begin with. (and noone here claimed that this was possible, and nobody requested to not release the code under the Apache license either). It was a what would the TDF had wished for item - in order to really be able to have a LGPL/MPL dual license, and not only have MPL for stuff that was added after the split. . But as it is more or less moot, as the grant apparently applies to the whole (including current) codebase, it is almost-as-good (in terms of code-reuse by the TDF/LibreOffice, independent of collaboration with the OOo-apache-incubator-project) There have been claims that the TDF demanded impossible things from Oracle, but a re-licensing to MPL isn't that much different from re-licensing to Apache-license from my POV. ciao Christian -- 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
