Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code
How could I infer? Because, as I stated, it was *specifically* inferred to other entities who subsequently asked me if I knew the real answer. As such, I specifically asked the 2 controlling bodies of the 2 projects. I rec'd a responses quickly from AOO, but none was coming from LO, and therefore I had to broaden my contact on that end, and was even directed/suggested to do so, which I did. The ASF and AOO have no issue with patches which are dual-licensed (alv2-lgplv3) or triple-licensed (alv2-mpl-lgplv3). They are on records as saying so. I am simply seeing if TDF and LO are just as willing. So far, more time has been spent on bypassing the question than simply answering it. On Mar 10, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: How could you possibly infer from any earlier answer that triple-licensed contributions would be inherently refused? Like Andrew Pitonyak I read exactly the opposite. Florian said that in the sort of theoretical argument you're attempting, code under a triple license is just as acceptable and explained why, just as at Apache, the actual acceptability of any contribution in practical terms is about much more than just the copyright license. I struggle to see how that could be misunderstood, especially by someone I know to be highly intelligent and experienced. S. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? If so, what, exactly, is the reason? tia! On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger flor...@effenberger.org wrote: Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05: I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However, I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2. Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and nothing else, is such a patch acceptable. as our licensing page states, in order to contribute to LibreOffice and be part of our community, we require a dual-license of MPL/LGPLv3+ for contributions, which gives everyone the benefit of the strong rights these licenses grant. From time to time, depending on the specific case and the quality of the code, we may use and merge other licensed pieces of code with compatible licenses. We examine each case, depending on its merits. And this is not a theoretical question. I have been approached by people and companies stating that they wish to help LO but want to provide their code patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons) and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple licensed under the ALv2 In theory, code under a triple license is just as acceptable. In practice, however, TDF has hundreds of affiliated developers working as a team together, doing the actual code review and acceptance work. There is a spectrum of developer opinion on your nurturing of a competing project. Many core developers may be less inclined to invest their time into significant, active assistance: mentoring, reviewing, finding code pointers, merging, back porting, and so on, for functionality that will not provide a distinctive value for LibreOffice. So, while there may be many possible acceptable variations of inbound license and contributions, there are likely relational consequences of those choices that are hard to quantify. Having said that, all developers who want to contribute constructively to LibreOffice are welcome in our community, and we have a high degree of flexibility to fulfill their genuine needs. The best thing to do is just to point them to our developers list. Florian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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] Dual licensing of patches and code
exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply boils down to it depends, which is really no answer at all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3 as not handed the same way it depends... Furthermore it does not describe the actual mechanism. I will be blunt: it certainly *appears* that all this hand waving is being done to be able to accept code when it is beneficial to LO only, and not accept code when it is beneficial to LO *and* AOO, as code under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 would be, except for small code patches and fixes that have no real value. Such a it depends policy allows this, and this is the core of the question. The people who contacted me specifically wanted to provide code to LO, that merged with LO w/ no conflicts, would require extensive re-work to be folded into AOO, but would be licensed under the alv2 and were told that the inclusion of the alv2 as the license of the donation was unacceptable. When asked if dual or triple licensing was acceptable, they were told No. To them, it appeared that the *mere possibility* that it could be used by AOO, even though their people are being paid to work on LO, was enough to prevent their work being even considered. Will the ASF and AOO accept code licensed in such a way that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is yes. Will the TDF and LO accept code licensed in such a way that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is it depends... the logical assumption regarding WHY is not-complimentary to TDF and LO, nor is it beneficial to the OO ecosystem itself, nor is the policy defined enough that code providers know what to do. On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at each case on its merits. That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless* of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. Hi Jim, Florian answered that exhaustively in his earlier email: On Mar 7, 2013, Florian Effenberger wrote: as our licensing page states, in order to contribute to LibreOffice and be part of our community, we require a dual-license of MPL/LGPLv3+ for contributions, which gives everyone the benefit of the strong rights these licenses grant. From time to time, depending on the specific case and the quality of the code, we may use and merge other licensed pieces of code with compatible licenses. We examine each case, depending on its merits. In theory, code under a triple license is just as acceptable. In practice, however, TDF has hundreds of affiliated developers working as a team together, doing the actual code review and acceptance work. There is a spectrum of developer opinion on your nurturing of a competing project. Many core developers may be less inclined to invest their time into significant, active assistance: mentoring, reviewing, finding code pointers, merging, back porting, and so on, for functionality that will not provide a distinctive value for LibreOffice. So, while there may be many possible acceptable variations of inbound license and contributions, there are likely relational consequences of those choices that are hard to quantify. Having said that, all developers who want to contribute constructively to LibreOffice are welcome in our community, and we have a high degree of flexibility to fulfill their genuine needs. The best thing to do is just to point them to our developers list. Jim Jagielski wrote: Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity of the contacts, but that should not matter. I understand, but in general we like to work directly with those contributing the code, rather than dealing in hypotheticals. With kind regards, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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] Dual licensing of patches and code
As stated, they contacted me because they had been told that such licensing was not accepted to BOTH parties, not just one. This should have been clear from my 1st post. That is why I asked both parties. On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello Jim, There's something quite wrong in this conversation. Some entity -a corporation or a government- has approached you and asked you questions on how to contribute to LibreOffice (by the way, please be so kind as using the term LibreOffice and not LO). As the Chairman of the Apache Software Foundation the useful and effective thing to do is to point this entity directly at the Document Foundation. It is not up to the ASF to speak on behalf of the Document Foundation, but you obviously know this as you came here to ask your question on this mailing list and I thank you for doing so. At this stage let me reiterate that if this entity you have mentioned repeatedly has questions about possible contributions to LibreOffice, these should be directed to the Document Foundation and not to any other foundation. For the record, the Document Foundation has not been contacted (privately or publicly) by anyone but you with respect to a triple licensing scheme for contributing to LibreOffice. Best regards, -- Charles-H. Schulz Co-founder Director, The Document Foundation, Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24. Le Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:35:08 -0400, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com a écrit : exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply boils down to it depends, which is really no answer at all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3 as not handed the same way it depends... Furthermore it does not describe the actual mechanism. I will be blunt: it certainly *appears* that all this hand waving is being done to be able to accept code when it is beneficial to LO only, and not accept code when it is beneficial to LO *and* AOO, as code under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 would be, except for small code patches and fixes that have no real value. Such a it depends policy allows this, and this is the core of the question. The people who contacted me specifically wanted to provide code to LO, that merged with LO w/ no conflicts, would require extensive re-work to be folded into AOO, but would be licensed under the alv2 and were told that the inclusion of the alv2 as the license of the donation was unacceptable. When asked if dual or triple licensing was acceptable, they were told No. To them, it appeared that the *mere possibility* that it could be used by AOO, even though their people are being paid to work on LO, was enough to prevent their work being even considered. Will the ASF and AOO accept code licensed in such a way that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is yes. Will the TDF and LO accept code licensed in such a way that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is it depends... the logical assumption regarding WHY is not-complimentary to TDF and LO, nor is it beneficial to the OO ecosystem itself, nor is the policy defined enough that code providers know what to do. On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at each case on its merits. That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless* of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. Hi Jim, Florian answered that exhaustively in his earlier email: On Mar 7, 2013, Florian Effenberger wrote: as our licensing page states, in order to contribute to LibreOffice and be part of our community, we require a dual-license of MPL/LGPLv3+ for contributions, which gives everyone the benefit of the strong rights these licenses grant. From time to time, depending on the specific case and the quality of the code, we may use and merge other licensed pieces of code with compatible licenses. We examine each case, depending on its merits. In theory, code under a triple license is just as acceptable. In practice, however, TDF has hundreds of affiliated developers working as a team together, doing the actual code review and acceptance work. There is a spectrum of developer opinion on your nurturing of a competing project. Many core
Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code
On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: Hi Jim, On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:42:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at each case on its merits. That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless* of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. For example, if a patch was single-licensed under the GPL, AOO would reject it, because it is incompatible with the conditions on which AOO itself is licensed as well as because the social contract which AOO tries to create. A patch under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 would be fine, license-wise, and would not be rejected out-of-hand. At that point, the patch would either be accepted or rejected based on the technical merits, and not on any social aspects. The anonymous contacts you claim to represent should step forward and work on the dev list where I am sure their genuine needs will be accommodated flexibly. claim to represent... Ah, good strategy. Instead of addressing the question, simply pretend that the question itself is invalid or that the person who is asking it has ulterior motives. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity of the contacts, but that should not matter. The question is valid and should be easy enough to answer: would LO/TDF treat a patch/contribution under alv2-mpl-lgplv2 *ANY* different than a patch under just mpl-lgplv3. It's a simple question. The very fact that I've been unable to get a simple answer should be proof-positive that others that I claim to represent also have been unable to get a clear, official answer as well. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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] Dual licensing of patches and code
Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? If so, what, exactly, is the reason? tia! On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger flor...@effenberger.org wrote: Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05: I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However, I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2. Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and nothing else, is such a patch acceptable. as our licensing page states, in order to contribute to LibreOffice and be part of our community, we require a dual-license of MPL/LGPLv3+ for contributions, which gives everyone the benefit of the strong rights these licenses grant. From time to time, depending on the specific case and the quality of the code, we may use and merge other licensed pieces of code with compatible licenses. We examine each case, depending on its merits. And this is not a theoretical question. I have been approached by people and companies stating that they wish to help LO but want to provide their code patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons) and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple licensed under the ALv2 In theory, code under a triple license is just as acceptable. In practice, however, TDF has hundreds of affiliated developers working as a team together, doing the actual code review and acceptance work. There is a spectrum of developer opinion on your nurturing of a competing project. Many core developers may be less inclined to invest their time into significant, active assistance: mentoring, reviewing, finding code pointers, merging, back porting, and so on, for functionality that will not provide a distinctive value for LibreOffice. So, while there may be many possible acceptable variations of inbound license and contributions, there are likely relational consequences of those choices that are hard to quantify. Having said that, all developers who want to contribute constructively to LibreOffice are welcome in our community, and we have a high degree of flexibility to fulfill their genuine needs. The best thing to do is just to point them to our developers list. Florian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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] Dual licensing of patches and code
The 'problem' is that I've been approached by a number of corp, gov't and non-profits who wish to contribute to LO but want their donations to also be covered under the ALv2. They have heard back that code under ALv2 will not be accepted by TDF and LO and that patches must be under LGPLv3+MPL to even be considered. They would like to know if submissions under ALv2+LGPLv3 or even ALv2+MPL+LGPLv3 would be acceptable. Thx for any answers that could be provided. On Mar 6, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello Jim, while it is hard to understand the problem, in principle, with using any combination of licenses in addition to the project's preferred LGPLv3/MPLv2 dual license, do you have a patch or proposal for a patch submitted to the dev mailing list that we can look at? Best, Florian Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05: Thanks for the reply, but the policy doesn't answer my specific question. I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However, I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2. Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and nothing else, is such a patch acceptable. Dropping OpenOffice since they have already indicated that the answer for them is YES. And this is not a theoretical question. I have been approached by people and companies stating that they wish to help LO but want to provide their code patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons) and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple licensed under the ALv2. tia. On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello Jim, thank you for your e-mail. You'll find TDF's policy on this subject here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy Best, Florian Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-05 18:32: -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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] Dual licensing of patches and code
For corporate entities, this is not optimal... they need legal to sign off on any donations, and such a single donation is much easier. If a donation is triple-licensed mpl+alv2+lgpgv2 would that be accepted by TDF? On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am gonna try to answer your question, although I am not that experienced: If you are the author of the code, you may send it in as MPL + LGPLv3 to LibreOffice and to ALv2 to OpenOffice. Might this answer your question? Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger Am 06.03.2013 um 16:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com: Thanks for the reply, but the policy doesn't answer my specific question. I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However, I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2. Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and nothing else, is such a patch acceptable. Dropping OpenOffice since they have already indicated that the answer for them is YES. And this is not a theoretical question. I have been approached by people and companies stating that they wish to help LO but want to provide their code patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons) and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple licensed under the ALv2. tia. On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello Jim, thank you for your e-mail. You'll find TDF's policy on this subject here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy Best, Florian Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-05 18:32: On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate an answer from TDF as well. On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get any and all responses :) On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Hello there. This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account. Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more corporate affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code, patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In general, these people have code that directly patches LO but they also want to dual-license the code such that it can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and modification for it to be committed to, and folded into, the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can license their contributions as they see fit. However, I have been told that they have rec'd word that such dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or the ASF. Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from both projects and both entities that both projectsSo are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO. Thank you. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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 Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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] Dual licensing of patches and code
Thanks for the reply, but the policy doesn't answer my specific question. I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However, I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2. Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and nothing else, is such a patch acceptable. Dropping OpenOffice since they have already indicated that the answer for them is YES. And this is not a theoretical question. I have been approached by people and companies stating that they wish to help LO but want to provide their code patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons) and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple licensed under the ALv2. tia. On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello Jim, thank you for your e-mail. You'll find TDF's policy on this subject here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy Best, Florian Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-05 18:32: On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate an answer from TDF as well. On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get any and all responses :) On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Hello there. This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account. Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more corporate affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code, patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In general, these people have code that directly patches LO but they also want to dual-license the code such that it can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and modification for it to be committed to, and folded into, the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can license their contributions as they see fit. However, I have been told that they have rec'd word that such dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or the ASF. Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from both projects and both entities that both projectsSo are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO. Thank you. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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] Seat at the BoD
If people feel that it would be helpful to TDF to have a board member who has a tight relationship with Apache, I would accept a nomination if it would be useful. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: The overlap between TDF ASF's goals for an office product (modulo enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition. I disagree... competition implies a winner and a loser... in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market Share? Feh. When you start looking at it that way, then what makes FOSS FOSS kinda gets overlooked. The intent of FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide freedom and choices to end-users. If having 2 competing implementations means that a larger set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms and choices than if there was only 1 implementation, then the competition is most valid. It's being complementary, not competitive. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Keith Curtis wrote: I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that doesn't make them ideal. I'm not sure about that... Some forks are good, some are bad. It's the reasons that make them either good or bad, but the forks themselves aren't. In fact, the ability to fork is one of the great benefits of FOSS. OT: but, of course, numerous forks, like the uncontrolled growth which is cancer, is bad for the community, imo. Cheers! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: \ I also make more posts because I'm amazed that some leaders in our movement with the pedigree of IBM are actually hindrances. I see a story worthy of the New York Times. In fact, I have a connection ;-) And I'm surprised that some leaders are more concerned about PR and marketing and being perceived as something they are not, rather than trying to be more inclusive to the much larger eco-system in which they live. Sometimes personal ideological stances blind people so much that they forget what's important: it's building FOSS that changes the world, not sticking it to companies, people or entities that one feels slighted by. -- 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
Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote the content and they are responsible for the content on the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure at all. On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, BRM wrote on 2011-06-15 15.47: should be updated to reflect the legal reality that while TDF is being setup it is an sub-entity of FroDeV; listing out who specifically owns the trademarks, etc. That would go a long way in saying TDF is or is backed by an actual legal hm, isn't this the exact information contained in the imprint? It reads: [...] The party responsible for the content of this website is: Freies Office Deutschland e.V. Riederbergstr. 92 65195 Wiesbaden Deutschland/Germany E-mail address: i...@frodev.org Website: http://www.frodev.org Vertretungsberechtigter Vorstand/Board of Directors: Thomas Krumbein (Vorsitzender), Jacqueline Rahemipour, Florian Effenberger (Anschrift jeweils wie oben) [...] Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- 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 Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote: Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition. What does it say about collaborating with others? Anything? (serious question, I have no idea). In essence, as a public trust, the ASF must operate in a way that does not favor one vendor or partner or collaborator over another. This is one reason why the ASF was, for example, unable to continue within the JCP EC, since our involvement in there provided more benefit to Oracle than to anyone else. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:17 PM, David Nelson wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 22:18, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: I was making the observation that TDF's website materials make little mention of the fact that FroDeV is involved. Therefore, to help reduce the comments by those that _do_ make that claim it would be beneficial for TDF to update its website to make reference to the existing legal status in the normal fashion of listing FroDeV and TDFs relation with it in the little section where the copyright/trademarks/etc are all mentioned on every page on the TDF website. It's my feeling that people who have been following and contributing to the project are pretty well aware of which organization is handling the founding. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think BRM's point wasn't directed towards those who know, but rather instead the large percentage of people out there who don't. 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). That perception was beneficial during all the discussion and debate since it implied that, as far as legal-status was concerned, TDF == The ASF and so the discussion was able to be distilled down to copyleft vs non-copyleft FOSS (as far as which foundation was better for OOo)... I am sure that someone on this list will see the above as some sort of slam against TDF, but it's simply my interpretation of what BRM was trying to say. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Volker Merschmann wrote: Hi, 2011/6/10 Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org: BRM wrote: Clearly marking the website, signatures, etc. for TDF would probably go a long ways in helping to end that conversation. Since we're now down to debating cosmetics - could we please end the discussion here all get back to work? TDF will be legally established in due course, quite a few people are working on that. Some more fundamental (not just cosmetical) insights actually have been published by the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice I would recommend that TDF make their own determinations... After all, it would be trivially easy for someone at the ASF to make a counterpoint blogpost recommending AL... If people are swayed by what FSF (or anyone else) says without giving thoughtful and honest consideration for their *own* s/w, then FOSS is in big, big trouble. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:04 PM, NoOp wrote: Repeat. On 06/06/2011 06:05 PM, 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? ... Was it your intention to pop into this list with: Hello! I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine as well. and no longer respond to questions? The questions are, IMO, valid and are important - both for OOo and TDF/LO. Sorry I did not reply to this email in a timely manner... although I have replied to others, I did not have time to answer this one; I have been traveling and am at a conference and so sincere apologies for taking 2 days to reply. I think that should OOo not be approved as an incubator podling, then there are 3 main options. The first is that the ASF could refuse the grant, at which point they would remain Oracle property. I think that some people would want to do that; the ASF is not in the business of accepting stuff that it has no intention of using. 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. The 3rd would be that the ASF would donate the code and the trademark to someone else; there is no guarantee that it would be to TDF or anyone else to TDFs liking, since we have no idea who it would be or could be donated to. I will say that it is unfortunate that there is sooo much distrust on both sides, because it really prevents us from having the type of open and honest discussions required. There are people who see TDF's resistance to working with the ASF as a simple ploy to get the ASF to donate the code (and trademark) to them, acting for what seems as what is in their best interest, rather than the best interest of the community in general. Same as those who see the ASF as more interested in taking over than in working with people. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:17 AM, M Henri Day wrote: 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 ?... It's possible, sure, but if the ASF were to do this, then I would expect that they/we would spent quite a bit of time determining the best place for it... Not saying that it's not TDF, but who knows... Not a slam against TDF at all, just an honest statement that we don't know where it would go. (will likely be offline for the next several hours, if not more...) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:36 PM, M Henri Day wrote: left out. As I see it, the upshot of the matter is that TDF would best be advised to devote its limited resources to improving LibreOffice, rather than to working to please the lawyerly mind I would suggest, as an outsider, that TDF continue the lawyerly efforts in finalizing its foundation, non-profit, governance, models. There is nothing worse, or more dangerous, than an almost created foundation. ;) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote: A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non- TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is incorporated in Germany, not the United States. That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)? I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs there... being independent is quite important to a number of FOSS ecosystem people... While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying that you don't think TDF is independent. Please can you explain what you mean? People may just be curious about TDF being backed by“Freies Office Deutschland e.V.” as well as an associated project in Software in the Public Interest (SPI). What does being backed by them mean? How independent is it from these 2 entitied? Just questions like that. Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Cheers! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop. Agreed... the only reason I mention independent is that even a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip that in the bud. Cheers! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.13: Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away (what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure, esp to an entity which was still in the process (though close!) of finalizing its foundational status... your interpretation of #3 is wrong. It reads available for transfer, and emphasizes that by into The Document Foundation's infrastructure. There is not a single word about hardware wanted. Thx for the clarification... BTW, it also mentions integration with Oracle ERP and CRM stacks Did you really want (and expect) direct access to such incredibly sensitive and important parts of Oracle's business structure? How does that help the community? It seems much more something a competing business would want. -- 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] How Close Is TDF...?
On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Italo Vignoli wrote: I do not think that going over our letter to Oracle with the intent of finding areas where it could have been improved does any good to the exhisting and future relationships. I agree... My going over it was simply to indicate areas which I *think* (again, I have no idea, nor do a *want* to know) may have been reasons Oracle declined, since that seems a point that people are extremely curious about. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:37 AM, toki wrote: I am sure that the concept of the ASF being bullied by IBM or being the pawn of IBM sounds attractive and makes for compelling tweets. The fact is that it's not true, any more so than TDF is a pawn of Novell for example. I am not replying in this case to 'jonathon'; it is obvious that his mind is made up, whether based on reality or not. My reply is instead offered to those who are really curious about things, people whose minds are not closed by conspiracies and fantasies and pure ideological viewpoints. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:56 AM, toki wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/06/2011 13:25, Jim Jagielski wrote: that his mind is made up, whether based on reality or not. 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? -- 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] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote: Hi Robert, 2011/6/6 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com: Until the TDF has taken that last step, expect to be challenged about your readiness ;-) I'd like to take up your offer :-) But here on this list and on the understanding that we're trying to work together to assess for the public record how close the TDF is TDF is so near that it had offered help to Oracle last month: http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/ Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away (what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure, esp to an entity which was still in the process (though close!) of finalizing its foundational status... -- 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
Sorry if you feel that way. I stand by my PoV that what happened is, in some ways, a victory, even if not the one that TDF ideally would have wanted. I understand that, and not trying to minimize that at all. On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:40 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: but a victory is a victory. Enjoy the rare one rather than look for next one ;) a 'victory' ? going from a copy-left license to source-sinkhole license ? are you sure you are posting that on the right ML, or you just enjoy rubbing it in ? Yeah it is a victory for IBM, no doubt... and a nice departure middle finger from Oracle... Thanks Apache for lending a helpful hand... they could not have done it without you... Pardon me if I don't rejoice. Norbert -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3022088p3025719.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- 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 Jun 5, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Marc Paré wrote: Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our great product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in Oracle's hands. Speaking for any ASF lurkers here, I can assure people that we are not here to change anyone's mind, nor to try to dampen open conversation by our presence, nor anything else that would prevent TDF from continuing to do what it is doing, and doing it so well. We are here simply to answer questions and, most important, to address, and clear up, any FUD that could potentially derail any cooperation. Let's be honest, there's enough real-world issues that have the potential to derail things; having to deal with non-existant FUD issues is something no one wants to :-) -- 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
Assuming that these are question that you are serious about wanting answers to, I will attempt to do so. On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote: What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice? A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non- profit public charity. It is a legal incorporation, which has been in existence since 1999. It is, as you say, a foundation with lots of projects, in fact, most of the top 10 FOSS projects are ASF ones. It has a proven track record, and a set governance and organizational structure that is recognized and emulated within the FOSS and non-FOSS (eg: government, health-care, etc) communities. I would say quite a bit then. So imagine the potential if the ASF and TDF worked together... 1. You start with zero community and you alienate the LibreOffice community. I would submit that zero community is somewhat of an understatement. As far as alienation, if the LOo community feels alienated, and I'm not saying that they don't have every right to, why is it directed to the ASF which never sought this donation, and from the get-go has tried to pull in the LOo organization? 2. You will start building a community at some point in the future in some unknown way. Please read the various posts and sites regarding the Apache Incubator which describes how this is done, and has been done, quite successfully, for loads of projects. 3. You are developers and can currently only deal with developer needs. We are users and developers. Anyone with even a rudimentary awareness of the ASF and how ASF projects work should realize that. In fact, the very 1st ASF project, the httpd server, should clearly indicate that it was as *users* that we used our developer skills to keep the project going. 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. git is currently being investigated. svn allows others to share code. 5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers. And why not? 6. The Apache Foundation hosts over 150 projects and I fail to see any important user-centric software like OpenOffice. Agreed, if by user you mean desktop end user. And the ASF has been quite upfront in saying that this is an area where TDF has some clear areas to provide insight/help/guidance, etc... 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 No, the essential need is that Oracle wanted someplace with a proven track record to donate the code to so they could then be rid of it. The essential need to the community is an open, well-established entity that is (hopefully) able to help the entire community to cooperate and collaborate on such an important piece of FOSS code as OOo. 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? One could ask the same of Novell, but in any case that is immaterial to the point. By building a healthy community around the project, what IBM/Novell/Foobar tries to do is moot. 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. One could point to the success of AL codebases in the same way. Ideological stances on licenses have a tendency to get in the way. 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? immaterial. OO/LO are in this critical point where they can repeat the Linux copyleft success story and help ODF dominate the document formats. Even FSF admits that when there are competing standards, a AL license is the best choice, even compared to a copyleft one. 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. One could also say that having both cooperate would greatly speed up progress in major changes. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: Are you proposing that TDF could be the copyleft-preferring subsidiary of Apache, Jim? I'm not proposing anything. It was asked What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?. I answered. I've no idea where you saw any sort of proposal about subsidiaries at all. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: The plain fact is that Apache's rules do not allow any section of Apache-maintained code to be licensed under copyleft licenses. That means that groups of people who have made the the equally valid choice to have their work licensed under LGPL will be unable to collaborate within the Apache community. As a consequence, any part of the OOo/LO codebase whose locus of development moves to Apache cannot be co-developed by people preferring copyleft licensing. The folk who choose non-copyleft licensing simply won't be welcome at Apache. While the folk who choose only Apache licensing will be welcome at LibreOffice (since their Apache-licensed contributions can readily be used in the LibreOffice code), they will probably not be content with a work-product that's not Apache licensed. Given these plain facts, I believe it is inevitable that there will be two projects. As such, I think it's important to get started on the rules of engagement for productive co-operation rather than endlessly arguing about licensing or the possibility that every developer with existing preferences will spontaneously change them. Personally, I don't think it's inevitable at all, nor do I think it the place for people to make such statements on behalf of communities that they have, as far as I know, only limited associations with. If we want to turn this discussion into an ideological debate about copyleft and non-copyleft, then I think it's a mistake. But just recall that even the FSF admits that AL2.0 is the best license where free/open standards are competing with non-free/proprietary ones. (PS: True, people who choose only copyleft won't be welcome at the ASF (they would be welcome, really, it's just that the ASF just does AL2... it's just an environment in which they might feel as outsiders), but neither would those people who choose only non-copyleft feel welcome at TDF... I think most people are true pragmatics and choose the best license for the job at hand.) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: Your participation is welcome, Sam, but statements that have as their unspoken precondition that people with long-term choices abandon them are at best disingenuous statements that you have personally been censoring in the Apache forum. I think we all agree that the game has changed. There are now options open and available to LOo and OOo that, until a week ago did not exist. Maybe some of those long-term choices were based on facts or conditions that have changed significantly enough to be re-investigated. I have made some long-term choices regarding my retirement. Tomorrow, should I win a $200M lottery, or suddenly discover that I have cancer, I would certainly re-look at those choices which I made... Is that abandoning them? Or re-evaluating them? Cheers! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: Hey, chill. As Sam says, there's no ideology involved, just choices. The last thing I want is an ideological debate because I already know how it turns out. That's why I think it would be far better not to keep making proposals whose most likely response is an explanation of how licensing is the issue blocking them. I'm chilling like a villain. Sorry, but you *based* your conclusion of the inevitability of there being 2 projects on the *ideology* of copyleft vs non-copyleft. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: But just recall that even the FSF admits that AL2.0 is the best license where free/open standards are competing with non-free/proprietary ones. See Bradley Kuhn's rebuttals to Rob Weir[2][3]. You should only do that when there is a strong reason to justify it. I see a number of strong reasons, should people decide to do it. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: Sorry, but you *based* your conclusion of the inevitability of there being 2 projects on the *ideology* of copyleft vs non-copyleft. I did that because the diversity of the world of FOSS is a clearly observable fact. You observe a different world around you? I don't want to argue about it precisely because it's so obvious :-) It is, agreed. Maybe I am just somewhat of an optimist that I believe even pure idealogical stakeholders can find common ground and that nothing is inevitable. So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate? Agreed again, and glad to see everyone discussing and negotiating these proposals... and others! Cheers! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: I'm first and foremost an end user, so I'm not concerned about the license as far this doesn't allow corporations like IBM to keep their predatory attitude vs end users. So, my stance for copyleft is very practical: proprietary software predates basic end users, like myself, obfuscating problems and code, and I think that the only way to avoid this is to force corporations to use copyleft (I know, they'll never accept, but at ths point I prefer them to pay for all the development and related activities). Well, my opinion is that by having a non-copyleft version available, it removes the incentive for commercial entities to create their own versions, which will be obviously totally proprietary. Putting it another way, if the only open source version is copyleft, then you will not see commercial entities use it, simply because it requires their own secret sauce bits to be forcibly donated. So they won't use it at all and, instead, create their own from scratch. And there is risk associated with that... See http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html especially the 'Why Apache Software is Free' version. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: I had thought you were further away... That's the impression I had from an early post here as well... Please see: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html -- 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: [steering-discuss] Hello... and also lurking!
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote: Hi Jim, 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com Hello! I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine as well. Be sure that we are very honored with your presence here. I'm sure we'll do many good stuff together. Thanks, but honored is for sure too strong a word :) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Hello... and also lurking!
Hello! I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine as well. Cheers! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: [steering-discuss] Hello... and also lurking!
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote: Hi Jim, 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com Hello! I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine as well. Be sure that we are very honored with your presence here. I'm sure we'll do many good stuff together. Thanks, but honored is for sure too strong a word :) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: Man, how I love fullquotes :-/ On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev ljelou...@gmail.com wrote: Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies. Sorry, but what is your point? my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just to have a say or now there are no restrictions yet. Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times that they won't allow other licenses. Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license? So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially when you write it as a f'up to my posting. If the reason to not join Apache is because you are holding out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think you are holding out for a lost, lost hope. Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle will keep :/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
The ASF accepts contributions from anyone. You don't have to be part of the ASF to contribute. The ASF is a meritocracy, and so the more you do, the more you *can* do, and providing bug fixes, patches, documentation, translations are all welcome and needed contributions (as with all FOSS projects). As far as the 'Oracle won't make new licensing agreements', I am not an Oracle person, but that is the clear indication they have given me, and one will I have little doubt they mean. On that last point, btw, LOo/TDF and others (including I think IBM, although I know that there have been bad history and bad blood there) are to be commended because it was the pressure that you all provided that finally encouraged Oracle to release the s/w. That is *not* easy. When Oracle digs in their heels, they dig in deep (does Larry wear stilettos?). The fact that it wasn't a revenue source for them certainly made it easier, but a victory is a victory. Enjoy the rare one rather than look for next one ;) Cheers! On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev wrote: So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part of ASF. Laurence On 05/06/2011, at 10:11, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: Man, how I love fullquotes :-/ On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev ljelou...@gmail.com wrote: Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies. Sorry, but what is your point? my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just to have a say or now there are no restrictions yet. Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times that they won't allow other licenses. Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license? So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially when you write it as a f'up to my posting. If the reason to not join Apache is because you are holding out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think you are holding out for a lost, lost hope. Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle will keep :/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
