Re: Copyleft vs Permissive

[esh1907]

A model of 100% volunteer based software project is futile.
Only a combination of payed workers and volunteers is viable.


On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:

> On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote:
>
>> Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>
>> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
>>> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
>>> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
>>> not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
>>> anything that uses their licenses.
>>>
>> The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are
>> promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has
>> no copyleft.
>>
>> But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because
>> nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the
>> permission of the copyright holder (programmer).
>>
> I do not think copyleft gives you more control. You omit your copy rights
> in favour of copy left.
> Multi Licens policies are only possible if your developer team agrees on
> this model right from the start.
> If you try to build one afterwards, I would expect at least difficulties,
> or even risks if your documentation on contributors is to sloppy.
>
>> That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these
>> licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft.
>>
>> That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code.
>>
>> For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom.
>>
> Endusers do not care about license policy in general. See the closed
> source drivers in the Kernel. There was somewhat pressure to resolve it,
> but a lot of pressure not to sentence it.
> Also you can see in our Community that the Apache License is not a major
> topic to them. Functionality is the major point. I think it is even less
> important for users which license a software has then data security.
>
>> If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much
>> easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more
>> control, what people do with your product.
>>
> I think the license model is much tied to your business modell. If you are
> able to build services around code, the protection of the copy left, makes
> you more secure on the market. Since no one can break out.
> 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. There is this Idea
> floating around copy left == communism, which I think is not true. It
> depends on the organisation of the community.
>
>> Kind regards
>> Michael
>>
> Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I
> have another point of view :-D
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Copyleft vs Permissive

[Peter Kovacs]

Maybe market based is the wrong expression. How about market oriented...?

# We are more innovative!
# Have more features!
# We have faster release cycles!
# We are no 1 open Source Office suite.

They are not community focused arguments, not open source focused arguments.

All the Best
Peter

Dr. Michael Stehmann  schrieb am Sa., 14.
Jan. 2017, 08:52:

> Am 14.01.2017 um 00:55 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> >
>
> > You see that on the LO vs. OO discussion. Most of the LO argument are
> > market based one. If you think outside the market its all not an issue.
> > What Reamains is the strength of Open source as such.
> > In my eyes we are in a super strong position, as long as we have a
> > commiter base that work for the greater good. And I am very convinced on
> > the Open Office future.
>
> The question is, what "market based" mean.
>
> If it means, that we take care of the users needs and wishes, it is a
> good attitude. Observing the user experience and their work flows is
> very usefull for example.
>
> In the Free Software community some developers make good code, which is
> useable only by geeks. And it is also not really usefull to create the
> 1th editor or the 1000th Linux distribution.
>
> If "market based" means to look how to earn the best profit, it might be
> userunfriendly.
>
> Kind regards
> Michael
>
>
>
> --

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: Copyleft vs Permissive

[Peter Kovacs]

Dave Fisher  schrieb am Sa., 14. Jan. 2017, 04:56:

> Hi -
>
> If Oracle or IBM thought they had any additional advantage with Apache
> OpenOffice development then the history of this project would differ.
>
Obviously however you do not know what their reasons for the decision is.
They could have calculated that buying ms office is cheaper or more viable.
Incompatibility is still a major issue.

But that's not my point. You can exchange the companies with whatever you
like. The situation in general remains the same.
-- 

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: Copyleft vs Permissive

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 14.01.2017 um 00:55 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> 

> You see that on the LO vs. OO discussion. Most of the LO argument are
> market based one. If you think outside the market its all not an issue.
> What Reamains is the strength of Open source as such.
> In my eyes we are in a super strong position, as long as we have a
> commiter base that work for the greater good. And I am very convinced on
> the Open Office future.

The question is, what "market based" mean.

If it means, that we take care of the users needs and wishes, it is a
good attitude. Observing the user experience and their work flows is
very usefull for example.

In the Free Software community some developers make good code, which is
useable only by geeks. And it is also not really usefull to create the
1th editor or the 1000th Linux distribution.

If "market based" means to look how to earn the best profit, it might be
userunfriendly.

Kind regards
Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Copyleft vs Permissive

[Dave Fisher]

Hi -

If Oracle or IBM thought they had any additional advantage with Apache 
OpenOffice development then the history of this project would differ.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 3:55 PM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12.01.2017 11:00, Pedro wrote:
>> 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. 
> Never forget, all of this is a mind game. IF you fear something or feel 
> confident it is mostly based on your own weighting of arguments.
> 
> I assumed that if you work with a Product, then not all is released. Parts of 
> it, are closed, and therefore individual, but share a common base with other 
> competitors.
> This can drop production/development cost or can shortcut knowledge original 
> did not available.
> 
> I can not imagin that you can directly earn from a Product if you only have 
> copy left license model. Some do, but this is only working if all other 
> commiters more or less donate to the cause.
> Or you have a complex method on lesser and full copy left structure. Which 
> can results in issue over time, if something that develops differently then 
> you have planned.
> 
> The risk over time, is on Permissive licence lower. Also if this is viable 
> option, you can always retreat from the project without loosing your invest.
> 
> For us it means that Oracle, IBM can always start to market their own Product 
> without the need to return something towards Open Office. From Oracles or IBM 
> position this is a strong one.
> However I do not believe that the community is at the same time in a weaker 
> position, because Open Source is in my eyes not bound to market or earning 
> strategy. Unlike companies we can take time.
> You see that on the LO vs. OO discussion. Most of the LO argument are market 
> based one. If you think outside the market its all not an issue. What 
> Reamains is the strength of Open source as such.
> In my eyes we are in a super strong position, as long as we have a commiter 
> base that work for the greater good. And I am very convinced on the Open 
> Office future.
> 
>> Regards,
>> Pedro
> my best regards
> Peter
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Copyleft vs Permissive

[Peter Kovacs]

On 12.01.2017 11:00, Pedro wrote:

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. 
Never forget, all of this is a mind game. IF you fear something or feel 
confident it is mostly based on your own weighting of arguments.


I assumed that if you work with a Product, then not all is released. 
Parts of it, are closed, and therefore individual, but share a common 
base with other competitors.
This can drop production/development cost or can shortcut knowledge 
original did not available.


I can not imagin that you can directly earn from a Product if you only 
have copy left license model. Some do, but this is only working if all 
other commiters more or less donate to the cause.
Or you have a complex method on lesser and full copy left structure. 
Which can results in issue over time, if something that develops 
differently then you have planned.


The risk over time, is on Permissive licence lower. Also if this is 
viable option, you can always retreat from the project without loosing 
your invest.


For us it means that Oracle, IBM can always start to market their own 
Product without the need to return something towards Open Office. From 
Oracles or IBM position this is a strong one.
However I do not believe that the community is at the same time in a 
weaker position, because Open Source is in my eyes not bound to market 
or earning strategy. Unlike companies we can take time.
You see that on the LO vs. OO discussion. Most of the LO argument are 
market based one. If you think outside the market its all not an issue. 
What Reamains is the strength of Open source as such.
In my eyes we are in a super strong position, as long as we have a 
commiter base that work for the greater good. And I am very convinced on 
the Open Office future.



Regards,
Pedro

my best regards
Peter


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

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: 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

Re: Copyleft vs Permissive

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 11.01.2017 um 22:49 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

> Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I
> have another point of view :-D
> 
IMO there are a lot of points of view possible, when you are talking
about copyleft. And most of these are valid, if you don't say, that one
point is the only true point of view.

And one should never forget: Strong, weak or no copyleft may be an
interesting point, but most important is, that it is Free Software.

Kind regards
Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Copyleft vs Permissive

[Peter Kovacs]

On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote:

Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:


For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
anything that uses their licenses.

The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are
promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has
no copyleft.

But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because
nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the
permission of the copyright holder (programmer).
I do not think copyleft gives you more control. You omit your copy 
rights in favour of copy left.
Multi Licens policies are only possible if your developer team agrees on 
this model right from the start.
If you try to build one afterwards, I would expect at least 
difficulties, or even risks if your documentation on contributors is to 
sloppy.

That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these
licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft.

That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code.

For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom.
Endusers do not care about license policy in general. See the closed 
source drivers in the Kernel. There was somewhat pressure to resolve it, 
but a lot of pressure not to sentence it.
Also you can see in our Community that the Apache License is not a major 
topic to them. Functionality is the major point. I think it is even less 
important for users which license a software has then data security.

If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much
easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more
control, what people do with your product.
I think the license model is much tied to your business modell. If you 
are able to build services around code, the protection of the copy left, 
makes you more secure on the market. Since no one can break out.
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. There is this 
Idea floating around copy left == communism, which I think is not true. 
It depends on the organisation of the community.

Kind regards
Michael
Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I 
have another point of view :-D


All the best
Peter

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