Re: Copyleft vs Permissive

[Peter Kovacs]

I will answer later today, I hope. Sorry for the delay.

Pedro  schrieb am Do., 12. Jan. 2017, 11:01:

> Hi Peter
>
> > If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the
> > Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
> > I do not believe that a lot of people understand this.
>
> Can you elaborate on this point? I don't really see how using a
> copyleftless license is better when your business "works directly with
> the Product".
>
> I see it as altruistic (like copyleft is communistic) but as a business
> model, I really don't see how it is a "stronger choice". Using a
> copyleftless license allows anyone else to build exactly the same
> product.
>
> Regards,
> Pedro
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
> --

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 13.01.2017 um 01:26 schrieb Simos Xenitellis:

> 
> There is the standing issue with the old www.openoffice.org
> that has been repurposed as the front page for Apache OpenOffice.
> 
> I would expect that the historical hostname "www.openoffice.org" to simply 
> show
> a list of OpenOffice.org-based projects, and inform the visitor their options.

We had this request some times before. Our answer was each time a clear
"no". Nothing has changed in the meanwhile.

There are no (new) reasons, why we should do this.

So this question is needless.

Kind regards
Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 12.01.2017 um 19:21 schrieb Dave:
> On 12.01.2017 16:54, RA Stehmann wrote:
>> Is the past on topic for the future?
> 
> Assuming that you are responding to my post in this thread,

I do not want to answer to your post, but the questions are caused by
the post of Nagy Ákos some minutes before.

Kind regards
Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

On 12 January 2017 at 18:29, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> S.
> (speaking here only as an AOO community member)

Thanks, Simon. I have long desired for there to be a useful confluence
and even convergence of code, effort, vision--I mean between LO and
AOO. Would still be nice, if only for the sake of large-scale users.

I left AOO PMC a while ago, in part because of other calls on my time,
and also because I did not see a solution to the situation.

best
louis

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Dr. Michael Stehmann
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet.
>
> If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice
> versa.
>
> We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any
> topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again.
>

There is the standing issue with the old www.openoffice.org
that has been repurposed as the front page for Apache OpenOffice.

I would expect that the historical hostname "www.openoffice.org" to simply show
a list of OpenOffice.org-based projects, and inform the visitor their options.
Specifically, it should show

 Apache OpenOffice   Libreoffice NeoOffice
 -> apache.openoffice.org  -> www.libreoffice.org  -> www.neooffice.org

I am happy to design and propose such a page.

Simos

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Dave, all.

On 12 Jan 2017 22:50, "Dave Fisher"  wrote:

Please correct the specific non Apache licenses if I get them wrong. As far
as I know the sequence of events is:


OpenOffice.org was originally dual licensed under LGPLv2 and SISSL (OSI
approved but now retired). With v3 we changed the license to LGPLv3 only.
When Oracle bought Sun, OO.o was licensed just under LGPLv3.

Oracle buys Sun including OpenOffice (closed license) and the open source
OpenOffice.org (GPL2).


At the time of purchase, the proprietary version was called "StarOffice";
Oracle changed the name of this proprietary version to Oracle Open Office.


TheDocumentFoundation forms and forks OpenOffice.org as LibreOffice under
GPL2


LibreOffice was only under LGPLv3 at this point as any other choice would
have required the copyright owner to relicense.  At some point (not sure
when) TDF requested contributions be made under both LGPLv3 and MPLv2 in
the hope of future relicensing, and invited Oracle to participate.

Oracle donates OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation relicensed
to AL2. Headers changed by an Oracle employee following ASF policy.


IBM donates OpenSymphony to the ASF relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by
an IBM employee following ASF policy.

The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed
software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony
code. Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all
the source as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady
although permitted. In effect this prevents LO updates from being
contributed back to AOO.


I doubt TDF could have integrated all the contributions to LO it received
under LGPLv3 and MPLv2 any other way.


That is the sequence.

One could ask on LO lists why they did this, but all we know here is what
happens here.

Some say it is more fun to develop LO. Others like Patricia and I like the
benefits of consuming AL2 software as opposed to GPL. Certainly TDF likes
to consume AL2 software.


The license a community uses is an expression of its outlook and norms.
Apache and TDF have differing outlooks (although they have remarkably
similar governance) so it's no surprise their license choices differ as
well. I'd hesitate to declare either Apache or TDF's choices as better for
everything and consequently have advocated for both at various times.

Cheers,

S.
(speaking here only as an AOO community member)



Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
>
> Thanks for the correction.
>
>> On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote:
>> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
>> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache
>> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011,
>> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010.
>>
>> An article about this:
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with
-openoffice-update/
>>
>> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta:
>>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>>>
>>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave :
>>>
> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
 The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
 https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/

 In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January
2011
 under the same license.

 Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to
the
 ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.

 In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
 the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
 from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.

 Please let's not try to rewrite history.

 --
 Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
 this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and
will
 never be read.


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> 

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Dave Fisher]

Please correct the specific non Apache licenses if I get them wrong. As far as 
I know the sequence of events is:

Oracle buys Sun including OpenOffice (closed license) and the open source 
OpenOffice.org (GPL2).

TheDocumentFoundation forms and forks OpenOffice.org as LibreOffice under GPL2

Oracle donates OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation relicensed to 
AL2. Headers changed by an Oracle employee following ASF policy.

IBM donates OpenSymphony to the ASF relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an 
IBM employee following ASF policy.

The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed 
software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony code. 
Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all the source 
as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady although permitted. 
In effect this prevents LO updates from being contributed back to AOO.

That is the sequence.

One could ask on LO lists why they did this, but all we know here is what 
happens here.

Some say it is more fun to develop LO. Others like Patricia and I like the 
benefits of consuming AL2 software as opposed to GPL. Certainly TDF likes to 
consume AL2 software.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the correction.
> 
>> On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote:
>> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
>> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache
>> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011,
>> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010.
>> 
>> An article about this:
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/
>> 
>> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta:
>>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>>> 
>>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave :
>>> 
> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
 The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
 https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/
 
 In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
 under the same license.
 
 Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
 ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.
 
 In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
 the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
 from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.
 
 Please let's not try to rewrite history.
 
 --
 Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
 this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
 never be read.
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
 
 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Patricia Shanahan]

Thanks for the correction.

On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote:

https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache
2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011,
but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010.

An article about this:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/

2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta:

See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia

2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave :


On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:

Hi,

it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
merged in OpenOffice.

That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.

The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/

In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
under the same license.

Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.

In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.

Please let's not try to rewrite history.

--
Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
never be read.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Chuck Davis]

Nagy,

I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely irrelevant to
me.  What IS relevant is the way the software works.  So, please, can you
tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do?

I recently was given a 30,000 row excel sheet to read into a database so
that I could use it with a Java front end.  LO choked (version 5.2.2.2 on
Linux), OO (version 4.1.2 on same machine) opened it perfectly and gave me
a progress bar to indicate it was working.

In my experience the LO writer user interface sucks -- badly.
In my experience the LO calc interface has become almost as annoying as the
MS Excel interface.  And now, I hear, they are going to add that stupid
"ribon" thingy to be even more annoying and counter-productive.

So code quantity or quality aside, what can LO do for me as a common user?
The Google "trend" you point to seems to indicate that people in Brazil and
Arabia can't figure out how to use LOsays nothing about OO as far as I
can tell except that OO is easier to use since the rest of the world isn't
asking as many questions about it.

Thanks for any insight you can provide.



On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Nagy Ákos  wrote:

> I wrote something that is not true?
> About the trends:
> https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice
>
>
>

Re: future of OpenOffice

[RA Stehmann]

Is the past on topic for the future?

Is a dogmatist a good pontifex?

Regards
Michael




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Nagy Ákos]

https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache
2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011,
but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010.

An article about this:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/

2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta:
> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>
> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave :
>
>> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
 Hi,

 it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
 merged in OpenOffice.
>>> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
>>> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
>>> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
>> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/
>>
>> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
>> under the same license.
>>
>> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
>> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.
>>
>> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
>> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
>> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.
>>
>> Please let's not try to rewrite history.
>>
>> --
>> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
>> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
>> never be read.
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Tsutomu Uchino]

See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia

2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave :

> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> > On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> >> merged in OpenOffice.
> >
> > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
> > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
> > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
>
> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/
>
> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
> under the same license.
>
> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.
>
> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.
>
> Please let's not try to rewrite history.
>
> --
> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
> never be read.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

FOSDEM 2017 Open Source Conference - Brussels

[Sharan F]

Hello Everyone

This email is to tell you about ASF participation at FOSDEM. The event 
will be held in Brussels on 4^th & 5^th February 2017 and we are hoping 
that many people from our ASF projects will be there.


https://fosdem.org/2017/

Attending FOSDEM is completely free and the ASF will again be running a 
booth there. Our main focus will on talking to people about the ASF, our 
projects and communities.


*_Why Attend FOSDEM?_*
Some reasons for attending FOSDEM are:

1. Promoting your project: FOSDEM has up to 4-5000 attendees so is a
   great place to spread the word about your project
2. Learning, participating and meeting up: FOSDEM is a developers
   conference so includes presentations covering a range of
   technologies and includes lots of topic specific devrooms

_*FOSDEM Wiki *_
A page on the Community Development wiki has been created with the main 
details about our involvement at conference, so please take a look


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/FOSDEM+2017

If you would like to spend some time on the ASF booth promoting your 
project then please sign up on the FOSDEM wiki page. Initially we would 
like to split this into slots of 3-4 hours but this will depend on the 
number of projects that are represented.


We are also looking for volunteers to help out on the booth over the 2 
days of the conference, so if you are going to be there and are willing 
to help then please add your name to the volunteer list.


_*Project Stickers*_
If you are going to be at FOSDEM and do not have any project stickers to 
give away then we may (budget permitting) be able to help you get some 
printed. Please contact me with your requirements.


_*Social Event*_
Some people have asked about organising an ASF social event / meetup 
during the conference. This is possible but we will need know how many 
people are interested and which date works best. The FOSDEM wiki page 
also contains an 'Arrival / Departure' section so so please add your 
details if you would like to participate.


I hope this helps people see some of the advantages of attending FOSDEM 
and we are looking forward to seeing lots of people there from our ASF 
communities.


Thanks
Sharan

Apache Community Development
http://community.apache.org/

Re: Copyleft vs Permissive

[Pedro]

Hi Peter


If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the
Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
I do not believe that a lot of people understand this.


Can you elaborate on this point? I don't really see how using a 
copyleftless license is better when your business "works directly with 
the Product".


I see it as altruistic (like copyleft is communistic) but as a business 
model, I really don't see how it is a "stronger choice". Using a 
copyleftless license allows anyone else to build exactly the same 
product.


Regards,
Pedro

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org