Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis wrote: >... >> The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You, >> the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get >> those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you. >> >> So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying >> on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they >> might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not >> ever ask for the source code. >> > > It's a common misconception. If a TV uses Linux (most LCD/LED TV use Linux), > you do not need to show evidence you bought one in order to ask for > the Linux source code. > > See the GPLv2 (per Linux kernel) license text, > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt > > “Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, > to give **any third party**, for a charge no more than your > cost of physically performing source distribution,” That written offer goes to the recipient (your statement comes from 3(b), which is dependent upon the primary part of (3), which talks about distributions to a recipient). The recipient does not need to transfer or pass that offer to third parties. Again, you're relying on the goodwill of the recipient to get changes returned. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 15:50, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >... > If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license that > requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with the changes to > my code that they make. No, you cannot. Copyright Law applies to certain actions taken with copyrighted works. In particular, as the copyright holder you have certain exclusive rights. For US law, please refer to [1]. When you grant a license, you allow the recipient to also have those rights, under your terms. "Use" of your copyrighted work and "modification" are not one of your exclusive rights. You cannot force a recipient to follow your terms when they perform those actions. The first three of those rights (reproduce, produce derivatives, and distribute) are the rights generally used in the FLOSS world[2]. Somebody simply making modifcations in private does not fall under those actions, so you have no way to force a recipient to return those changes to you. For that... you must resort to Contract Law, which is something entirely different. (and that is what EULAs attempt to operate under, but they often run into problems around "both parties agreeing to the contract"). Cheers, -g [1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 [2] people have also tried to use "public performance" and "display" to apply restrictions; see the AGPL -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino wrote: > > Greg Stein wrote: >> >> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right. >> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You. >> >> This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's >> contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware >> of. >> > > GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone > else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of > the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the > GPL as well. The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You, the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you. So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not ever ask for the source code. > The Apache license says you don't have to distribute under the same license > and therefore you don't have to provide the source code. Correct. > In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under > GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the > same as releasing the modifications you made??? Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I gave a binary to. That is not the same as "the community making the software". Also, recognize that I might make a TON of changes. Create a massively superior product. And then use it *internally*. I might not ever distribute my work outside of the company. Or... hey... I might put a web interface on the front of that Office Suite, and run a web-based version of it. That isn't releasing the software to anybody, so all of that awesome work that I did does not have to be released. (see the AGPL if you want to solve this scenario) > Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to > have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses? As a developer, you never had those rights to begin with. Apache is not removing any rights from You. People who use Apache code (developers, admins, end-users, hobbyists, companies, etc) have more rights: they can decide whether to return changes or not. But they do not have to operate under Free Software principles. That understandably bugs people. But as a developer, Apache is not reducing your rights (the original phrase that I took issue with). Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > Hi Greg, Dennis, Friedrich, all > > thanks for pointing to this very topic. > > So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably > minor consequences in code usage: > > While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus > needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of > copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing > the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts. I'm not familiar with the legal mechanics of OCA and JCA. For Apache's ICLA and process... yes. The short answer is that a third-party would not be able to sue *you* based on software they get from the Apache Software Foundation. The Foundation is set up to establish a trail of responsibility between the committers and the Foundation itself. We use the word "oversight" when establishing that linkage. The committer places code into the repository under the oversight of the Project Management Committee (PMC). Thus, the PMC has "instructed" the committer to do this, rather than the committer acting as a free agent. The PMC's actions are reviewed by the Board of the Foundation. Thus, the Board is providing oversight and accountability to the PMC. The PMC is operating at the direction and wishes of the Board. The Board represents the Foundation itself, and uses this chain of oversight to establish responsibility. If a third party attempted to sue You for (say) some violation of their copyright, then the Foundation can step in and say "we are responsible. Bernhard was acting according to our wishes. sue us, not him." The theory is that a judge will then remove you from the case, and put Apache in there. This is why we have the ICLA and why we structure the Foundation in a specific way. The Foundation exists to create a legal "umbrella" for all of its 3000 committers. Those committers should remain safe from third parties. People simply committing into a repository do not necessarily have this safety. There is no chain of oversight that allows an individual to escape responsibility. This problem exists across the entire FLOSS landscape. The saving grace is that we simply don't see these types of lawsuits. So the Apache legal umbrella is nice, but the chances of needing it are vanishingly small. > Both allow the entity to release the code under any license (or single > case authorization) they want to. Yes. > I don't want to discuss the possibility of positive or negative impacts > of single sided license changes in comparison to updateable "plus" licenses. "GPLv2 or newer" leaves you with the hope that the FSF will continue to look after *your* interests with your code. Linus Torvalds didn't believe the FSF would do the right thing for the Linux community, so he switched all the headers to "GPLv2". In retrospect, that was a smart thing to do because he very much disagrees with some aspects of the GPLv3. But yes: entities such as Oracle and Apache, having full licensing rights, could apply licenses that the community disagrees with. Personally, I trust Apache do it right :-) > But is there a difference in licensing and code usage by third parties > between OCA and ICLA (except the fact, that they can use Apache licensed > code without being forced to negotiate with and probably pay fees to Oracle > if they don't want to contribute back)? Nope. In both cases, third parties are getting code from Oracle or Apache, under whatever license that entity provides. How the code arrived (via OCA or ICLA) is immaterial. Both entities could provide the license under ALv2, and you'd have the same rights to that code. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:41, Andre Schnabel wrote: >... > Maybe Apache and TDF members might have a differnt view on the effects, > as Apache members are more used to US copyright law, while TDF members > are more used to the European way. That is a very important point, Andre. Thanks for pointing it out. I tend to forget it, too :-P >... Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra wrote: > As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must > say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in > the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug > reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being > saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug > that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository. > I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either. > > I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There, > within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the > "Easyhack" status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved > by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning > code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have > to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day. Absolutely that is what matters. Whether the caretakers place *you* at the forefront. Big faceless corporations generally don't, while smaller communities usually do. I believe the (recent) discussion stemmed from whether end-users care about the *license*. They mostly want a great product and a responsive caretaker. That's it. I can guarantee you that my mother, father, brother, sister, and the rest of my extended family would give me a blank stare if I told them they needed to use Free Software rather than proprietary. Crickets would echo in the room. There *are* end-users who want Free Software. Many of you care strongly about it, and seek out Free Software. Granted. But when you look at the tens of millions (hundreds?) of OOo and LO users, they simply don't care. Building and providing LibreOffice is a fabulous thing for people who really care about Free Software. LO has an important place in our software ecosystem. I just don't think projecting that philosophy onto the "typical end-user" makes sense, however. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:37, Simon Phipps wrote: >... > And right there you have both reached a point so familiar that even I have > written an article about it: > http://webmink.com/essays/causality/ > "The fact it is still an open question after nearly 30 years of free and open > source software experience suggests both outlooks have merits, and we’ll not > resolve the question here!" Nah. I was responding to the "removes rights" comment. Not "which approach best improves the commons". I don't have much of an opinion there because I agree with your article: both approaches improve the commons, and it is very hard to determine which is "better". So I just avoid relative value judgements on either approach w.r.t. commons. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:27, plino wrote: > > Greg Stein wrote: >> >> how can you say that Apache >> "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you >> still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache >> doesn't take anything from You. >> > > Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can see that :) > > Compared to GPL (which is what Apache is asking developers to give up on) it > removes the right to be given back any improvement or fix to the code you > contributed. As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right. Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You. This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware of. >... Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 17:53, 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)? I don't really want to debate most of your points because (frankly) some of it is true. Arguable to some extent, blah blah blah. :-) But the one point that I'm curious about: 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. Did I misunderstand you in some way? 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] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?
Right! Apache doesn't want any copyrights. It just wants to sublicense and create derivative works. More information (and the ICLA) are located here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 21:17, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Here's my sense of how they are different things: > > The ICLA is not a copyright assignment of any kind. It is only a license and > your affirmation that you have the right to grant it. > > The OCA non-exclusively transfers a property right. The license doesn't work > that way. My understanding is that differences include what can be > sold/transferred and who can sue someone for infringement. > > With regard to copyright, the Apache ICLA is very much like the license that > the terms of use for the openoffice.org site assert that you are providing in > making contributions on the site (without having entered into any OCA). That > is not a copyright assignment either. (Copyright assignments *must* be made > in writing in the United States.) > > The ICLA also stipulates a grant of Patent License. (So does the OCA. Not a > transfer, a license.) > > The ICLA also applies to contributions other than software. > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Friedrich Strohmaier [mailto:damokles4-lis...@bits-fritz.de] > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 17:15 > To: discuss@documentfoundation.org > Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing? > > Hi Greg, *, > > sorry, forgot to post links.. > > Friedrich Strohmaier schrieb: > >> I pull this in a new thread, as it is basic for understanding the >> difference between OCA and ICLA. > >> Greg Stein schrieb: > >> [..] > >>> Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright >>> assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. > >> Same thing with OCA. You don't/didn't "sell" your copy right instead >> it was shared. > > see here: > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Joint_Copyright_Assignment > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Oracle_Contributor_Agreement > http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html#usinglicenses > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/oca.pdf > > [..] > > sorry for avoidable noise.. > > Gruß/regards > -- > Friedrich > Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/ > LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted > > > -- > 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 Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 17:52, Keith Curtis wrote: >... >> I don't think the questions that I posed had anything to do with >> "merging", but simply the kinds of curiosity that TDF supporters may >> have (or those who may be interested in *becoming* supporters). > > They are irrelevant to you now that you aren't merging, and they would only > have been relevant to you if you had merged, and they aren't relevant to > typical people in the community so you can imagine why it is low priority. Agreed. >... > Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less important > than your consequences. Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. 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
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 17:04, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> >> You describe how all the committers and people on the steering >> committee know these details. Well, of course. But what about all the >> people at Apache who are trying to learn about the work you guys have >> done here? Trying to learn the details of your Foundation, its >> organization, and its (current) backing association? Trying to learn >> who handles your donations, and how those proceeds are disbursed? >> > > If you had come up with a plan of merging the foundations, all these details > would have been worked through. I don't think it matters now given the fork. > >> BRM, Jim, and I are trying to say that that information is opaque. It >> takes direct involvement from Florian to achieve understanding. > > You should have gotten your question answered before the proposal was > submitted for a vote. We got our answer (before the vote) because Florian explained it. Our point is that other people visiting the site will not have Florian's attention. This has nothing to do with Apache, except by way of example and that Florian was engaged. Others will not be so lucky. I don't think the questions that I posed had anything to do with "merging", but simply the kinds of curiosity that TDF supporters may have (or those who may be interested in *becoming* supporters). In short: suggestions on website improvements, for an audience that we weren't describing to David very well. >> Our goal is not to "beat" you. This is not a competition. That is not >> how Apache operates. >> > > Your goal is not to beat LO, but by choosing a fork you make cooperation > difficult via license incompatibilities and social engineering. So if you > aren't cooperating or competing then what word would you recommend? We want to cooperate. It is quite possible, and there have been several suggestions on ways to do that. If cooperation doesn't happen, then you're simply talking co-existence. Competition requires "intent", I believe. But we can choose to disagree on that, I suppose. 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 14:04, Simon Phipps wrote: > On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Greg Stein wrote: >> For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions >> become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not >> be able to take it.[1] > > Is the provenance that TDF secures at present sufficient for Apache's > purposes? Doubtful. We can't really depend upon third-parties to do provenance the way that we'd like. The lack of any form of CLA would clearly be an issue for us. >> I'm not sure why people have an aversion to an ICLA. > > Probably out of scope here. One of those things that just has to be > accepted, like Apache using Svn :-) Yup. Just noting my wonderment. 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:23, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:16, Greg Stein wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps wrote: >>> >>> On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: >... >> Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright >> assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the >> patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL >> combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2 >> license(*). > > The question would then appear to be whether Apache would accept > contributions under just the Apache License, without an ICLA (since there are > quite a few people here who object to any form of CLA). If you send a patch to one of our mailing lists, then you're intending for us to use it. It is thus a Contribution, and we can (re)license it under ALv2 when it is released. In our JIRA instance, we have a checkbox that clearly states the Contribution. For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not be able to take it.[1] I'm not sure why people have an aversion to an ICLA. Simon: you wrote an article on lwn.net about how they are "bad", but you were talking about *copyright assignment*. And yeah: that is Bad with a capital B. But Apache's ICLA does not include an assignment. It does not *remove* any rights from the development, so I do not understand why somebody would be reticent to sign one. >> Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's >> original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since >> it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it, >> then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF >> repository arises. > > Presumably anyone can do that porting, not just the original contributor? If the TDF does not accept ALv2, then the code arrives under the dual-license. Only the author can take his contribution and offer it to the ASF under the cover of his ICLA. If the TDF allows ALv2, then the code can be submitted to the ASF. However, even that submission is not quite the same as contributions under an ICLA, as I've explained elsewhere in this message. In short, the preference to get all code submissions under the cover of an ICLA. Code under explicit licenses needs to be treated as "upstream" and handled accordingly to the applied license. Fun stuff, huh? Cheers, -g [1] the person offering the feature could post a "release" of the code under a specific license. if it is compatible, then Apache can consume the code under that license. this is just like consuming third-party libraries. I imagine a code might be able to say, very clearly, in their email "these 5000 lines are offered to the ASF under the ALv2 license". that doesn't give the ASF the same kinds of rights as an ICLA, however. we'd have to isolate those 5000 lines into (effectively) a vendor branch of an unspecified source code release. -- 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:39, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:31, Alexandro Colorado wrote: >>> >> >> Here is a thougt, what if i just create a patch for Apache and submit the >> same patch to LibO? >> How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code >> around, but what about generating code for both? >> > > As far as I can tell, you could simply make your contribution in both places. Yup. If Keith has an ICLA on file, then he could get voted in as a committer and apply the patch. If not a committer, then sending the patch to the list is a Contribution, allowing the ASF to apply the patch and (re)license under the ALv2 when it makes a release. 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: > >> Hi all; >> >> I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their >> changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That >> way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here >> while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, >> many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. >> >> I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. >> >> What do you think? > > As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to > LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and > LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions > licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable. Right, Simon. ... but (you saw that coming) would TDF/LO accept commits into the repository that were only licensed ALv2? Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2 license(*). Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it, then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF repository arises. Cheers, -g (*) strictly speaking, you do not offer code to the ASF under any specific license. your ICLA grants the ASF a right to release your code under a license of its choosing. -- 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 13, 2011 at 15:05, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Jim, "BRM", > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> There was, >> and still is, the perception that TDF is an official, fully- >> setup, self-controlled and self-existing foundation (similar >> to what the ASF is) > > Personally, I'm very happy with what's been achieved, and I'm > optimistic for the project's future. Nobody is denying that or arguing otherwise. It is simply that newbie's have NO UNDERSTANDING of this. Florian had to explain all the details because they are not on the website. You describe how all the committers and people on the steering committee know these details. Well, of course. But what about all the people at Apache who are trying to learn about the work you guys have done here? Trying to learn the details of your Foundation, its organization, and its (current) backing association? Trying to learn who handles your donations, and how those proceeds are disbursed? BRM, Jim, and I are trying to say that that information is opaque. It takes direct involvement from Florian to achieve understanding. >... > BTW, I'm very happy to welcome you here to chew the fat with us. If > you really feel you have a different path forward that you want to > follow, then I sincerely wish you well with the endeavour. But you We've chosen to take this path, yes... so thanks for the well wishes. > have a lot of running to do in every area to catch up with us, guys! > ;-) > The competition will be interesting and probably not without Our goal is not to "beat" you. This is not a competition. That is not how Apache operates. Apache is a charity conceived and constructed to provide code to the world. We believe the best way to provide that code to *everybody* is to do so under a permissive license. If we can create a release of OOo, then we have performed our mission. Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition. But would not want to compete, regardless. We will produce the best OOo we can. If yours is better, then we believe that is just fine. If you are able to use some portion of our code to make your job easier, then even better. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: [steering-discuss] FYI: Apache Incubator is now voting
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 16:32, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >... > I think I had the opportunities, as a guest fof he incubator mailing > list to expression my opinions and sometimes more ;-) > At this point, I feel it would be over-staying my welcome to interject > myself in an Apache procedural vote. Heh. You would not be over-staying, and your continued input would always be welcome (at least to myself, even though I tend to disagree with you :-) > Have fun and Good luck with your brand new 'massive' baby :-) We're going to need that luck. Thank you :-) Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] FYI: Apache Incubator is now voting
Hi all, I just wanted to bring an "FYI" that the Apache Incubator has begun its voting process on accepting the OO.o proposal to become a "podling" within the Incubator. At the moment, it appears to be passing by a huge margin, with only two dissenting votes[1] at this time. The Apache process recognizes two types of votes: * "binding" votes are from those who have a recognized ability to participate in the process. These votes are the ones which will be counted. * "non-binding" votes are from other participants in the conversation. Their "votes" are allowed as a measure and gauge over the broader community opinion, even though they will not actually be tallied in the final ballot. If you wish to make your voice heard, then I would encourage you to respond to the [VOTE] thread on gene...@incubator.apache.org (I would think gmane[2] is your best way to respond to the thread without having to actually subscribe). Cheers, -g [1] the dissenting votes are non-binding, fwiw [2] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/29904 ps. my advance apologies if you feel this post is inappropriate for these two TDF forums. I felt obliged to include you all in this process, though I do understand that it may not be welcome. -- 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 Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 14:04, BRM wrote: >... > I'm quite pleased to see the ASF members (at least here) not taking offense > but > continuing to act very diplomatically throughout all of this. (That said, I > haven't paid nearly as much attention to the Apache Mailing Lists.) There is certainly a good bit of defensiveness from Apache people over on the other list. Just kind of the nature of things. I'm just looking forward to a vote on the danged podling so that we can start getting "real work" done. Most of the discussion has died down now. 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
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:17, M Henri Day wrote: > 2011/6/8 Jim Jagielski >... >> The 2nd is that the ASF accept the grant and simply place the >> tarball on a server somewhere and say "here it is." The ASF >> would let the OOo trademark die. I've said elsewhere (and earlier in this thread) that this option would be my favorite. >... > Jim, thank you for your considered - and considerate ! - reply. The > circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to > take(as seems to me to be the case) be > to accept the grant (in the event Oracle is offering it *nulla condicione > astrictus*) and then donate both the code and the trademark to TDF, given > the great work that the latter has been doing on LibreOffice ?... We do not have a transferable right on the software grant. So we can't "give" the code to TDF. We certainly can provide the code under the ALv2 license for TDF to pick up. We don't have the OOo trademark or website yet, but I believe we'll be getting rights to those. Should things fall apart in the Apache project, then yeah... we'd be interested in transferring those away. But it looks like we want to give the project a chance to succeed, so such a transfer would be premature right now. 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] Questions from the sidelines.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:54, James Walker wrote: > I believe he is asking > > Why would we want the code to begin with at this point. > > at the time of the fork, we already had all the code that was in OOo up to > that point, now LO has added more code, cleaned up a lot of code, and has > the backing of several large Linux companies. So why at this point do we > need or want to go back to being known as OOo? I think that the TDF may want the code in order to "rebase" the licensing stack, to provide greater flexibility in adjusting the LibreOffice package's license. According to the LO licensing policy[1], the codebase is mostly Oracle's LPGLv3 license, yet the desire is to move everything to a tri-license[2]. Getting a copy of Oracle's codebase under the ALv2 license means that more of the code can be shipped under all three licenses (LGPLv3, GPLv3, MPLv$whatever). You can't change the license header away from ALv2 (like you can't change it away from LGPLv3 today), but the overall package would have much more flexibility in its licensing. Cheers, -g [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy [2] tho an interesting question: if the MPL was used to entice IBM, but they prefer Apache, then it seems a reasonable to ask whether you want to keep MPL as an option -- 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 21:05, NoOp wrote: > On 06/04/2011 05:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > ... >> 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 :/ > > Interesting... > > Could you clarify that statement? > > 1. @ASF: What happens to OOo if ASF votes *not* to accept the OOo > project into the incubator? And it that is the case, what happens to the > OOo software that has been granted to the ASF by Oracle? We already have a recorded software grant from Oracle. So in that sense, we can release that code under the ALv2 right now. Normally, Apache will only make releases after appropriate review and testing. But if a project doesn't even get started, then there is nobody to perform that process, so podlings that do not start or do not graduate never get a chance to release the code. In this case, it is quite extra-ordinary. As a Director of the Foundation, I would lobby my fellow Board members to construct a tarball of the granted source files and drop that onto one of our servers. "Take it as-is. No warranty implied" and all that. I am pretty confident that the Board would agree to such an action. > 2. @TDF: More importantly (from my POV) - what, if any, affect will this > have on TDF/LO if OOo 'dies in Apache'? I suspect TDF will simply continue as before. They could "rebase" their files from the ALv2-licensed files, providing a much greater flexibility in the licensing of their overall work. > Apologies if this may have already been asked & answered. If so, can > someone point me to the appropriate messges within the hundreds of posts > & many, many threads on the ASF incubator list, or on this list? Not a problem. There is a ton of email, and maybe not enough hours in the day to deal with it :-) I saw your later query to Jim, asking for a response. He hasn't responded because he is away at a conference for a few days. 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
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:07, Augustine Souza wrote: > On 6/6/11, Greg Stein wrote: > ... >> the project? Bob can say whatever he'd like on his blog. >> > ... >> >> In any case... stop assuming that what *one* person says is >> representative of the entire (ASF) community. That simply isn't true. >> > ... > > That blog is responsible for quite a lot of ill-will. Here's a quote > from the end of the blog: > "I have a vision of a free, high quality productivity suite, one based > on open standards and open source, one that doesn’t treat the web and > mobile and tablet form factors as a design afterthought, one that has > a strong extensibility and programmability model that makes it the > preferred platform for innovation, one that has a dedicated community > of supporters. I’ll need your help to get there." > > The use of "I" twice does give the impression of leadership. It would > have been nice if someone from ASF had promptly undertaken > fire-fighting there. The ASF does not police speech on the Internet. Bob is not even part of the project (his name is not listed among the contributors in the proposal). Nothing more to say than that. 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
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:46, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-06 18.36: >... >> The software grant is a "done deal". I happen to believe the proposal >> will be accepted, but it is not a "done deal". > > Ah, okay - so the software grant exists independent from the incubation > result? Yes. The software grant was recorded by the ASF Secretary last week. 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
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:17, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 18.06: >>> >>> The reality is that IBM employees wearing their IBM hats, have made it >>> > crystal clear on the general@incubator list that IBM is going to force >>> > The Apache Foundation to take the project. >>> > >> >> How? > > I am *not* saying you would be influenced or forced - I'd never doubt that > you are deciding independent. However, what people may give the feeling that > something's wrong are statements like these: > > http://www.sutor.com/c/2011/06/some-remarks-on-openoffice-going-to-apache/comment-page-1/#comment-5309 > > "it is a done deal" > > That might create wrong impressions... I'll repeat what Jim said: how do you think IBM can force us to take the project? Bob can say whatever he'd like on his blog. The software grant is a "done deal". I happen to believe the proposal will be accepted, but it is not a "done deal". In any case... stop assuming that what *one* person says is representative of the entire (ASF) community. That simply isn't true. 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
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 00:16, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >... > * I find it extremely arrogant and insulting for a project that hasn't even > built anything yet to self-proclaim itself as 'upstream'. People are trying to find ways to collaborate. Due to restrictions around code adoption due to licensing, the Apache codebase naturally becomes an upstream source. It isn't a proclamation, but a hope. But hey... nobody is *forcing* another into anything. So I find your attitude strange. The overall community is going to move forward and develop. I think it is a great thing to see people trying to look forward to what that means. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:19, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03: > >>> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are >>> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh >>> have >>> enough." >> >> I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or anybody else. *I* certainly >> said it, and strongly believe it. But that's just me :-) > > so, why don't the ASF, the Mozilla Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation and > the GNOME Foundation unite? :-) Different goals. I actually helped in setting up the Eclipse Foundation :-P (and the Python Software Foundation, for that matter) MoFo exists to own MoCo. Eclipse is a consortium, rather than a charity. So of the group, it would be GNOME and ASF that are most similar. Danese could probably speak to why GNOME Foundation was set up. I dunno, but I do think its duplication is sad... > Sorry for the provocative question, I just wanted to state "But we already > have a foundation" is no good argument for me. However, I think the point I wasn't trying to make that argument. Just a generic statement about open source groups thinking it is all cool to have their own foundation. It isn't. Far from it. Django... Drupal... this that and the other. >... > This might not affect other topics, but honestly, I think the perception of > what already is in existence is not clear enough for many parties on this > list. :-) Hope I could shed some light on it... You very much did. Thank you! 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: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:44, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2011, at 18:42, Greg Stein wrote: > >> As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no >> indication either intends to change), then I believe direct "joining" >> of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find other ways to >> cooperate. > > Any idea what the best venue for that will end up being, Greg? Do we need to > create a "collaboration forum" somewhere that's neutral territory for both > ASF and TDF? No idea, actually. Probably something to just "wait and see". There doesn't seem to be a strong consensus on any of the proposed ways to collaborate, so until that happens, it is hard to guess what will be needed. For now, subscribing to a few mailing lists seems about the best approach :-) 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: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:38, Alexandre Silveira wrote: > Another alexandre... > > I've been reading the discussion and i have a pragmatic question. > > Why ASF doesnt join to TDF and better Why TDF join to ASF using their code > governance to develop one unique produticvity plataform called LibreOffice > and that could be used commercialy when properly customized and licensed > aggreed to be used as as a costumized version of libreoffice for a especific > use ??? The ASF will only release code under the Apache license. I believe the TDF will only release code under a copyleft license. As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no indication either intends to change), then I believe direct "joining" of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find other ways to cooperate. 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: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
2011/6/5 André Schnabel : > Hi, > > > Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch: >> >> On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca >> Turconiwrote: >>> >>> Is it sure there will be a *product*? >>> >> I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there >> will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum. > > > Let me rephrase to: "Will there be a product named OpenOffice.org?" > > I cannot answer, but as Gianluca mentioned Apache is more about a project, > not a product. And considering the OOo dependencies to copyleft components, > it will be quite a lot of work to get something that can be called "product" > and behaves like OpenOffice.org. I certainly believe that Apache will work to release a product under the OOo brand. But it will probably take quite a while to get there. In the meantime, components and other deliverables will have to suffice. 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
I have some disagreements with some of these statements, but I am a guest here. I would like to answer queries and concerns, rather than attempt to change opinions. In other words, I don't see a good way to respond to this, if that's what you are seeking. Cheers, -g On Jun 5, 2011 10:16 AM, "Simos Xenitellis" wrote: >... > What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice? > 1. You start with zero community and you alienate the LibreOffice community. > 2. You will start building a community at some point in the future in > some unknown way. > 3. You are developers and can currently only deal with developer needs. > 4. Your infrastructure is based on Subversion (SVN) which will make it > difficult > for other to share code. Git is not even in the immediate plans. > 5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers. > 6. The Apache Foundation hosts over 150 projects and I fail to see > any important user-centric software like OpenOffice. > > The essential need for the Apache Foundation involvement in this appears to be > so that IBM can continue to offer a proprietary product, IBM Lotus Symphony, > License Agreement at http://pastebin.com/uqbUTRg5 > > Is IBM is trying to replicate what Sun/Oracle had with StarOffice, > putting just enough resources > for their own needs in order to ship their product? > > The Linux kernel is an amazing piece of software that it used in 92% > of Top500 supercomputers, > all sort of servers, mobile phones, most TVs and routers. > And still, there is a single Linux kernel project thanks to the > copyleft license. > Everyone works on Linux because they cannot keep away their own contributions; > they have to share them with the community. > Even the ARM architecture, where each ARM licensee went their own way, > is going to get its cleanup. > Because the code for all of them is already in the Linux kernel repository. > > IBM makes money out of Linux by providing services. And IBM is even a > top contributor to the Linux kernel. > Would IBM hypothetically prefer to have the Linux kernel developed > under the Apache Foundation? > > OO/LO are in this critical point where they can repeat the Linux > copyleft success story > and help ODF dominate the document formats. > > OO/LO is a complicated piece of code and will probably require big > architectural changes. > Having an Apache OpenOffice and a LibreOffice will slow down progress > in major changes. > > 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: [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:06, Allen Pulsifer wrote: >... > Some of you may have noticed that Greg Stein, a member of the Apache > Software Foundation Board of Directors has joined this list and offered to > answer any questions. Please feel free to ask him about anything that is on > your mind. He would be a better person to answer, since I'm new to all this > Apache stuff myself :-) Thanks for the great email, Allen, and for the shout-out. Yes, I'm here listening. Most people at Apache are not familiar with this community, and so I feel it is important to listen and lurk here to get a better understanding. Sure... I can also answer questions, and would be more than happy to do that. In any discussion threads that may pop up, about the Apache work, I'll also attempt to fill in blanks where I see them. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
[trimming to just discuss@, as my understanding is that is the proper venue for this topic] On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:47, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, then please feel >> free to direct them my way (on whatever list). I'm here to listen and >> understand, and to offer up answers where I can. > > I have a question: > Why would Apache contemplate helping IBM pull a Jenkins/Hudson on us, > fragmenting the license of a project that has been with a uniform > licensing so far ? Apache helps out any community that wants to work under our umbrella. The Foundation itself provides the legal umbrella, governance, operations, infrastructure, and a bunch of other things. It is there to help its community. The Foundation has a proposal before it to help a to-be-defined community to work on OO.o as an Apache project. That TBD-community is not IBM and it is not Oracle. There are about 15 to 20 people[1] stepping up to launch that community. Lots of projects at the Foundation have duplicated other projects and communities. And vice versa. The Apache HTTPD Server is the most popular server on the planet, but lighttpd and nginx are also quite popular. We aren't going to shut down HTTPD just because it duplicates others. And other groups aren't going to stop building code just because we already have some. Open Source is about scratching your own itch. It isn't about saying "well, somebody else is choosing to do it their way, so I better not attempt to try it my way." We're helping that TBD community. If that helps corporations out there, then fine. Lots of Apache projects have companies built around them (Lucene, Hadoop, HTTPD, Tomcat, Subversion, etc ... all have *very* strong corporate involvement). Apache is a charity. We produce code for the benefit of *everybody*. Whether that is individuals, educational institutions, or corporate enterprises. Our software is for the public good. By using a permissive license, we can provide the software to *everybody*, and we can do that on *equal* terms for everybody. No winners. No losers. Now all that said, I am NOT forgetting that Oracle's choice to contribute OO.o (code and trademarks) to Apache *could* be a divisive move. I'm not convinced that it *must* be divisive. I believe that there are solutions that works for the benefit of the entire ecosystem (OO.o, LO, and all the other derivatives). We don't have to let it divide us. > (Oracle could merge our changes... they elected _not_ to do so because they > wanted a Copyright assignment on top of the code, but that was not > a licensing incompatibility) You had a choice to sign the assignment or not. It sounds like you chose not to, so it is no surprise to me that they elected to not merge your work. Even if you *had* signed the assignment, it sounds like Oracle had pretty much given up and wouldn't have merged your work anyways :-P > You (Apache) are lending your good name to a nasty endeavor, for the > benefit of a company > that has an history of screwing you over (Harmony ?) Heh. I think that you're missing a lot of information in that statement. Let me just hit a few highlights: * IBM helped us to START the Foundation * IBM contributed the original Axis, Xalan, Xerces, and Derby codebases (probably more) * IBM has contributed dozens and dozens of developers across Apache projects over the past decade * IBM pulled out of Harmony, but our code is *still* there and is *still* in use by people. there are still developers there, but not enough. the community has slowed down and is deciding what to do. IBM didn't "screw us", as any developer could leave any project at any time. that is the way it works * Oracle really screwed us on the JCP * Oracle is suing one of our Harmony users (Google and Android) So if we're gonna be pissed at anybody... it probably isn't IBM. But hey... we're above that. Remember our mission: provide software to the public. We're a CHARITY. We are not supposed to hold grudges. We're just supposed to move on, and build more code. > Ironically what seems to be happening at Apache is very reminiscent to > me to the ISO/MSXML debacle... > Some corporation exploiting the letter of your governance to better > abuse the spirit of it. I am sure that IBM will use our code for their own lucrative benefit. Apache exists to enable that. But we also exist to ensure that *anybody* can use our code to their own benefit. Including you. > (that is _if_ I understand what Apache stand for... but maybe I'm misguided) > > Norbert > > PS: I strongly encourage you to read: > http://www.itworld.com/software/170521/big-winner-apache-openofficeorg#comment-9942111 Yup. I read it when it was first publish
Re: [tdf-discuss] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
Hey Bernhard, See my responses inline below: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:09, Bernhard Dippold wrote: >... > I think this list here is the best for discussions about the community, > steering-discuss for contacting the Steering Committee members and > libO@freedesktop for developers. Gotcha. Those were the three recommended, and I've see discussion about the Apache proposal on all three. I suspect that I'll just stay in lurk mode over on libO :-) >> I intend to lurk regarding all the regular work that you all are doing >> here. I'll be paying particular attention to any conversations or >> concerns that you may have about the OOo/Apache stuff, and will >> attempt to answer questions that you may have. I'm catching up on the >> archives now. > > That's what I tried with the general@incubator list - quite challenging at > this time ;-) heheh... yeah, seriously. It's been quite a time sink! :-) ... but much fun! > I already wanted subscribe to it and post my question there, but perhaps > (due to the emotional style of discussion over there at the moment) it is > better to ask you here: Oh, I can answer these here no problem. I suspect the emotion is slowing down. We're still just a couple days past announcement, and I think people are still pondering what it all really means. Give people the weekend, and I think things will work much better. Anyways. Below: > In his mail > http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg28210.html Sam > Ruby points out, that an incubator proposal has to be discussed in the > community before presenting it to Apache. > > He cites the guidelines for proposals: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html > > "The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this > proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and > the reasons for coming to Apache." > > If this would have been handled in a proper way, Oracle would have discussed > this step with the OpenOffice.org community *before*. That's a guideline. And it is really talking about other Open Source communities. For example, the incoming Subversion or SpamAssassin or Cassandra communities. On the other hand, we've had lots of donations from corporations, where own all of the code. Needless to say, they do not have to confer with anybody *outside* of their organization. But... all that said: the core of your thinking is absolutely correct. It would have been best if Oracle had conferred more with the community at large. But the simple fact is they were not *obligated* to do so. It also sounds like they spoke to at least a few people from the TDF (per Rob Weir's comment about a conference call in April). Another thing to consider: what if they did talk to the entire community and *still* decided to go with the Apache approach? That could have happened, and I suspect people would be even more upset :-P >From appearances, and what I understand about history, it may also be that Oracle had some contractual obligations with IBM. They may have resolved those with this approach (yes: it seems very clear that IBM was a big mover in Oracle's choice). It is hard to say, being on the outside. The shortest answer is: they owned the code, they decided, we all have to live with that choice. (as a comparison point, I bet a bunch of MySQL contributors also felt pretty pissed off when MySQL AB got bought by Sun, and the employees got paid big bucks... while the open source contributors got squat... that is the risk of contributing to code owned by a corporation; that "imbalance of power" is constructed and maintained by copyleft licenses; it is rather unfortunate) > This would have reduced the traffic at the Apache list to a minimum - > leaving out bad blood and lot of noise... Agreed. > > As you probably know, defining the OpenOffice.org community has been easy > until last September, but now there are two different definitions, depending > on whom you ask: > > While the people working here on LibreOffice understand themselves and the > left-over OpenOffice.org as two projects within one community, some people > on the OOo lists deny the positive feelings towards OpenOffice.org by the > people who decided to create a single-sponsor independent foundation 8 > months ago. In their eyes the LibO-supporter lost their right to support > OpenOffice.org and feel as OOo community member with their support of > LibreOffice. > > This background is important to know, if you want to understand, what is > going on at the Apache list. Thanks for the background. It does help to define the various groups within the larger community. > > But not even the remnant OOo project (that lacks an active governing body > since all Community Council members not being payed by Oracle have been > forced to leave when they announced their dedication to an independent > foundation and all present seats should have been re-elected for a long > time) has been involved in discussion before Oracle donated the
[tdf-discuss] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
Hi all, I imagine you've all heard about the proposal[1] to contribute OO.o to the Apache Software Foundation. I've been involved with Apache for well over a decade, on its Board of Directors since 2001, its current Vice Chairman, the VP of Apache Subversion, and was the Chairman for five years. In short: lots of Apache experience. I've been following and participating in the discussion around the OO.o proposal on the gene...@incubator.apache.org list[1]. One of the threads of that discussion was to reach out to the people in the Document Foundation and the LibreOffice communities. So... that's this email. I'm now subscribed to discuss@df, steering-discuss@df, and libreoffice@freedesktop. I intend to lurk regarding all the regular work that you all are doing here. I'll be paying particular attention to any conversations or concerns that you may have about the OOo/Apache stuff, and will attempt to answer questions that you may have. I'm catching up on the archives now. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, then please feel free to direct them my way (on whatever list). I'm here to listen and understand, and to offer up answers where I can. Cheers, -g [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal [2] send mail to general-subscr...@incubator.apache.org if you would like to subscribe and directly talk about the proposal -- 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
