Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[Jochen Wiedmann]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:

 [...] their downstream code cannot be used.  Hence, the best outcome
 under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
 done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.

 Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
 de-facto 'upstream'.

Noel is describing a fact: It there is going to be something like
upstream, it can only be an ASL licensed OO, not a LGPL'ed LO.

What he misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you
are reacting angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that
acknowledges that this fact is just as likely to cause a total split
between LO and OO. Your reaction only goes to show that this
sensibility is required: Such a split would be the worst thing to
happen and it is something where LO would loose nothing (compared to
the time before the proposal) but would have missed a chance to win.

Jochen


-- 
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men
will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of
everyone.

John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes)

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

Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[Ian Lynch]

On 8 June 2011 08:43, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
 wrote:
 
  [...] their downstream code cannot be used.  Hence, the best outcome
  under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
  done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.
 
  Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
  de-facto 'upstream'.

 Noel is describing a fact: It there is going to be something like
 upstream, it can only be an ASL licensed OO, not a LGPL'ed LO.

 What he misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you
 are reacting angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that
 acknowledges that this fact is just as likely to cause a total split
 between LO and OO. Your reaction only goes to show that this
 sensibility is required: Such a split would be the worst thing to
 happen and it is something where LO would loose nothing (compared to
 the time before the proposal) but would have missed a chance to win.


This is really the crux of all the discussions. Is it better to maximise the
development resource through cooperation or is it better to have two
separate developments that end up incompatible with one another as far as
code sharing is concerned? It's no good saying if this or if that because
we are where we are. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle :-). So in the
end it is really quite a simple choice, cooperation or separation. If it is
cooperation and the licenses stay the same then to maximise resources,
Noel's position is logical if not easy  emotionally or philosophically for
some.


 Jochen

 --
 Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men
 will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of
 everyone.

 John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes)

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




-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:43:45AM +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
 
  [...] their downstream code cannot be used.  Hence, the best outcome
  under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
  done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.
 
  Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
  de-facto 'upstream'.
 
 Noel is describing a fact: It there is going to be something like
 upstream, it can only be an ASL licensed OO, not a LGPL'ed LO.  What he
 misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you are reacting
 angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that acknowledges that this fact
 is just as likely to cause a total split between LO and OO.

+1

The split between LO and OOo is reality.

The code bases are already divergent and it would be very difficult to
reconcile them.  To make Apache OOo upstream from LO would mean one of two
things:

  1. The LO people throw out everything they've done and start over from
 scratch.
  2. The LO people organize a large collective software grant to Apache for
 their work.  Since there are a lot of people involved, this would be
 a daunting task even if it wasn't politically toxic.

In both scenarios, TDF, after all they've gone through, after all the work
they've done, takes on a reduced role: to use Norbert's analogy, they go from
being the auto factory to being a custom shop.

We're coming off like some know-it-all newbie manager waltzing in after a
hostile takeover and imperiously informing the people closest to the project
that they are being demoted and they should be happy about it 'cause our
organization is so freakin' awesome.

What we ought to be doing instead, if we really want to form good relationships
with the LO community, is not continually repeating abrasive facts about
licensing, but showing a modicum of *humility*.

The reason I praised Sam is that he is clearly sensitive to all this.  He has
been an exemplary ambassador, and my hat is off to him.  It is worth repeating
his recommendations in their entirety:

That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up.

At the present time, there are people who would rather not participate
in such an arrangement.  They have something that works just fine for
them.  Many are skeptical that we can deliver.  The most that we can
do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b) execute.  If we do both
well, we will achieve much more than we could by prior agreement.

I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't yet
have a track record or anything new to offer.  And that in such a
context it is rather presumptuous at this point for us proclaim that
we are the core or even are relevant.

I think that passage represents the best of Apache's inclusive traditions, and
I hope we can live up to it -- both the sake of the project and for our own
sake as human beings.

Marvin Humphrey


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

Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[Charles-H. Schulz]

Hello Marvin,


Le Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:04:42 -0700,
Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com a écrit :

 On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:43:45AM +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
  On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud
  nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
   On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman
   n...@devtech.com wrote:
  
   [...] their downstream code cannot be used.  Hence, the best
   outcome under the current licensing regime is for all core
   development to be done here, and for TDF to be a downstream
   consumer.
  
   Just because you choose a particular license that does not make
   you de-facto 'upstream'.
  
  Noel is describing a fact: It there is going to be something like
  upstream, it can only be an ASL licensed OO, not a LGPL'ed LO.
  What he misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you
  are reacting angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that
  acknowledges that this fact is just as likely to cause a total
  split between LO and OO.
 
 +1
 
 The split between LO and OOo is reality.
 
 The code bases are already divergent and it would be very difficult to
 reconcile them.  To make Apache OOo upstream from LO would mean one
 of two things:
 
   1. The LO people throw out everything they've done and start over
 from scratch.
   2. The LO people organize a large collective software grant to
 Apache for their work.  Since there are a lot of people involved,
 this would be a daunting task even if it wasn't politically toxic.
 
 In both scenarios, TDF, after all they've gone through, after all the
 work they've done, takes on a reduced role: to use Norbert's analogy,
 they go from being the auto factory to being a custom shop.
 
 We're coming off like some know-it-all newbie manager waltzing in
 after a hostile takeover and imperiously informing the people closest
 to the project that they are being demoted and they should be happy
 about it 'cause our organization is so freakin' awesome.
 
 What we ought to be doing instead, if we really want to form good
 relationships with the LO community, is not continually repeating
 abrasive facts about licensing, but showing a modicum of *humility*.
 
 The reason I praised Sam is that he is clearly sensitive to all
 this.  He has been an exemplary ambassador, and my hat is off to
 him.  It is worth repeating his recommendations in their entirety:
 
 That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up.
 
 At the present time, there are people who would rather not
 participate in such an arrangement.  They have something that works
 just fine for them.  Many are skeptical that we can deliver.  The
 most that we can do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b)
 execute.  If we do both well, we will achieve much more than we could
 by prior agreement.
 
 I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't
 yet have a track record or anything new to offer.  And that in such a
 context it is rather presumptuous at this point for us proclaim
 that we are the core or even are relevant.
 
 I think that passage represents the best of Apache's inclusive
 traditions, and I hope we can live up to it -- both the sake of the
 project and for our own sake as human beings.


Well spoken; although I believe that humility has to be equally shared
among every stakeholder :-) 
I think you have perfectly summarized the issue here, and I think it's
perhaps time to consider this issue to be clearly stated in this way
(at least the part related to TDF). Now if we could move forward I
think that what could make sense would be to define or clarify what
exact purpose would serve the OpenOffice code base at Apache and the
Apache Openoffice project. I know that no codebase ever had any intent
in itself and that people do whatever they want. That's true and by the
way that's why software patents are dangerous, (but that's another
discussion), but it does not preclude the project and its vision to be
articulated in a different way than a general purpose office suite
that's free, open source and uses ODF. In this case, LibreOffice fits
the bill, but so does KOffice/Calligra (btw, nice examples to draw
inspiration from), Abiword/Gnumeric, etc. 

My understanding is that the Apache OpenOffice codebase matters to IBM
and anyone who would want to use the specificities of the Apache
licensing, and I understand this as being a reality we can all agree
on. Instead of spending hours and keystrokes pondering on the ability
of the Apache OpenOffice project to execute or to become LibreOffice's
upstream, I would like to rephrase or reframe Simon's proposal, esp.
its points 2 and 3 (2: rename the project to Apache ODF suite 3. make
this project not the office suite that competes with LibreOffice but
make it the meeting point of development efforts for specific purposes
and ODF). Basically this amounts to think about the current proposal
based on two factors:

1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo 
LibreOffice on a technological 

Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 6/8/2011 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
 On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

 1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo
 LibreOffice on a technological level and on  a distribution level
 2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony).

 I hope we can move forward on this.
 
 If we are to call the vote on Friday as currently seems to be the target 
 (which is in no
 way fixed) I wonder if the ASF representatives who engaged with the TDF lists 
 can provide
 a little feedback. Specifically I'm interested to know if there was any 
 discussion along
 the above lines.

I'm hoping 'they' don't.  E.g. that the ASF representatives who engage
the TDF community are the Podling PMC members, old hats and newcomers alike,
and that this communication and community bridge-building is delegated to
that podling itself.

But if there are new concerns raised at TDF that must be addressed before
an acceptance vote, I hope any of the signed up committers already feel free
to bring those concerns to this list.

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

Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[Sam Ruby]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
 On 6/8/2011 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
 On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

 1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo
 LibreOffice on a technological level and on  a distribution level
 2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony).

 I hope we can move forward on this.

 If we are to call the vote on Friday as currently seems to be the target 
 (which is in no
 way fixed) I wonder if the ASF representatives who engaged with the TDF 
 lists can provide
 a little feedback. Specifically I'm interested to know if there was any 
 discussion along
 the above lines.

 I'm hoping 'they' don't.  E.g. that the ASF representatives who engage
 the TDF community are the Podling PMC members, old hats and newcomers alike,
 and that this communication and community bridge-building is delegated to
 that podling itself.

+1

 But if there are new concerns raised at TDF that must be addressed before
 an acceptance vote, I hope any of the signed up committers already feel free
 to bring those concerns to this list.

+1

- Sam Ruby

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

RE: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[Noel J. Bergman]

Ian Lynch wrote:

 It's no good saying if this or if that because we are
 where we are. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle :-).

Exactly.

 This is really the crux of all the discussions. Is it better to maximise
the
 development resource through cooperation or is it better to have two
 separate developments that end up incompatible with one another as far as
 code sharing is concerned?

 So in the end it is really quite a simple choice, cooperation or
separation.
 If it is cooperation and the licenses stay the same then to maximise
 resources, Noel's position is logical if not easy emotionally or
 philosophically for some.

Not mine.  Perhaps stated more clearly and plainly, but others said the same
before me.

The issue is that there are players, IBM not being the only one, who require
a permissive license.  TDF's licensing does not satisfy that requirement.
TDF could change, but I haven't seen any positive indication that it would.

So we are where we are:

  - There is a codebase under a permissive license.
  - There are players -- large and small -- who want/need to work on it.
  - There is a large community actively engaged in working on the code
under a non-permissive license.
  - Code can only flow from permissive to non-permissive.

Alternative suggestions as to HOW to collaborate are welcomed.

--- Noel



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

RE: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[Noel J. Bergman]

Marvin Humphrey wrote:

 The code bases are already divergent and it would be very difficult to
 reconcile them.  To make Apache OOo upstream from LO would mean one
 of two things

OK, let's clarify for sensibility: Apache would be upstream (licensing
acting as a diode), but not THE upstream.

As for how to do that, that's something that would have to be worked out
between the project and other stakeholders, e.g., TDF.  The greater the
extent of the upstream work, the greater the code sharing.

Charles Schulz wrote:

 Instead of spending hours and keystrokes pondering on the ability
 of the Apache OpenOffice project to execute or to become LibreOffice's
 upstream

OK, can we put to rest the idea that code sharing only flows in one
direction due to the licensing, and that is the sole implication of the word
upstream?  :-)

 I would like to rephrase or reframe Simon's proposal:
 - rename the project to Apache ODF suite

That's up to the project.

 - this project not the office suite that competes with LibreOffice but
 make it the meeting point of development efforts for specific purposes
 and ODF).

Again, this is up to the project and the needs of its participants.  But you
appear to be ignoring the need for a permissively licensed product codebase
on behalf of some members of the proposed community.

--- Noel



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

Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[André Schnabel]

Hi,

can we please just end this futile discussion?

I agree, that water flows one direction only. But there needs to be 
water first to flow in any direction.


If there will be enough to establish a flow, can only be seen, once the 
podling is in place. The risk estimation (will the podling run dry?) is 
up to Apache.


regards,

André

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik]

On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
 We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept
 ..
 As the trees diverge, it will get harder to give code to you both.
 What if some changes depend on other GPL code? Your insistence on
...
 LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of
 your software. 

Great! Don't worry about that. We celebrate that. 

The folks here at apache tend to like  to code - and if others use it - build 
amazing things with it -  so much the better. 

We're happy to see our children travel the world - and do not insist that they 
call home every night.

Seriously. 

Dw.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Ross Gardler]

Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)

On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org wrote:

 On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote:
 
 ...
 LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of
 your software. 
 
 Great! Don't worry about that. We celebrate that. 
 
 The folks here at apache tend to like  to code - and if others use it - build 
 amazing things with it -  so much the better. 

+1000

Can I ask if the above statement regarding reuse is a consensus position or an 
individual opinion. 

Ross
 

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Jim Jagielski]

On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
 
 On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
 I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP 
 server.
 
 
 It is official: Keith is a troll.
 We always have.
 Do not feed.
 
 Sorry for anything off-topic, etc. It was my first / only day on this
 list. The situation is frustrating and I saw a lot of stuff I
 disagreed with or was amazed by.
 
 I believe I have made all of my points already.
 

Keith, your posts had a very troll-like aspect to them...
apologies if your questions really were honest.


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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:

 Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)

 On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org
 wrote:

  On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote:
 
  ...
  LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of
  your software.
 
  Great! Don't worry about that. We celebrate that.
 
  The folks here at apache tend to like  to code - and if others use it -
 build amazing things with it -  so much the better.

 +1000

 Can I ask if the above statement regarding reuse is a consensus position or
 an individual opinion.


It's really just a matter of fact, Ross. The code is spaghetti of the first
order, and unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do
extremely substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the
same code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the
context of actual shared repositories.

S.

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Noel J. Bergman]

Simon Phipps wrote:

 unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely
 substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same
 code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the
 context of actual shared repositories.

That sounds like a fine scenario.  The ASF is good at providing Open Source
to be reused downstream.

And hopefully (from my perspective, at least) there will be refactoring, or
even rearchitecting/rewriting, to enable OOo to better participate in the
mobile/cloud arena, with that forming the basis for downstream builds.

--- Noel



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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:

 Simon Phipps wrote:

  unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely
  substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same
  code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the
  context of actual shared repositories.

 That sounds like a fine scenario.  The ASF is good at providing Open Source
 to be reused downstream.

 And hopefully (from my perspective, at least) there will be refactoring, or
 even rearchitecting/rewriting, to enable OOo to better participate in the
 mobile/cloud arena, with that forming the basis for downstream builds.


 I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome would
 be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial push-back
 from some quarters.

I saw pushback from multiple sides.  From what I can see, that
push-back still exists.  Reminding people of this is not going to
help.

 S.

- Sam Ruby

A good leader takes a little more than his share of the blame, a
little less than his share of the credit.

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
  On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
 wrote:
 
  Simon Phipps wrote:
 
   unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do
 extremely
   substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the
 same
   code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the
   context of actual shared repositories.
 
  That sounds like a fine scenario.  The ASF is good at providing Open
 Source
  to be reused downstream.
 
  And hopefully (from my perspective, at least) there will be refactoring,
 or
  even rearchitecting/rewriting, to enable OOo to better participate in
 the
  mobile/cloud arena, with that forming the basis for downstream builds.
 
 
  I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome
 would
  be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial
 push-back
  from some quarters.

 I saw pushback from multiple sides.  From what I can see, that
 push-back still exists.  Reminding people of this is not going to
 help.


Reminding people of what, Sam? As far as I can see the resulting consensus
text is still there in the proposal. Are you proposing that it should be
removed?

S.

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Noel J. Bergman]

Simon Phipps wrote:

 I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome
would
 be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial
push-back
 from some quarters.

So let's address the push-back.

The proposal, as I understand it, is for OpenOffice to exist at the ASF.
Push-back that it should move to TDF is just a non-starter, as far as I can
see, for those interested in doing OpenOffice under a permissive license.
The licensing issue does not go away, so let's move on with the assumption
that OpenOffice will happen here.

Once we establish that predicate, the question is what happens with
collaboration.

You and I agree that core development would happen at the ASF.  TDF would be
a downstream consumer of the core code, and able to incorporate incompatibly
licensed code into its unique distribution.  Everyone, IBMer, TDFer, and
other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under our
license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under their own
license.  From that perspective, TDF and IBM are equal players, each with
their own enhancements: one set LGPL/MPL, the other closed source.

Let us not conflate trademark issues with collaboration on the code.  That
just defocuses attention from the necessary issues, IMO.

--- Noel



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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
 Simon Phipps wrote:

 I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome
 would
 be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial
 push-back
 from some quarters.

 So let's address the push-back.

That is not the only push-back, and my suggestion is that we not focus
on the differences we have.  Let's instead focus on how we can
maximize the areas we have in common.

- Sam Ruby

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

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Noel J. Bergman]

Sam Ruby wrote:

 my suggestion is that we not focus on the differences we have.
 Let's instead focus on how we can maximize the areas we have
 in common.

Isn't that what:

  Core development would happen at the ASF.  Everyone: IBMer, TDFer, and
  other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under
  our license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under
  their own license.  From that perspective, TDF and IBM would be equal
  players, each with their own enhancements.

does?

--- Noel



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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
 Sam Ruby wrote:

 my suggestion is that we not focus on the differences we have.
 Let's instead focus on how we can maximize the areas we have
 in common.

 Isn't that what:

  Core development would happen at the ASF.  Everyone: IBMer, TDFer, and
  other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under
  our license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under
  their own license.  From that perspective, TDF and IBM would be equal
  players, each with their own enhancements.

 does?

That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up.

At the present time, there are people who would rather not participate
in such an arrangement.  They have something that works just fine for
them.  Many are skeptical that we can deliver.  The most that we can
do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b) execute.  If we do both
well, we will achieve much more than we could by prior agreement.

I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't yet
have a track record or anything new to offer.  And that in such a
context it is rather presumptuous at this point for us proclaim that
we are the core or even are relevant.

        --- Noel

- Sam Ruby


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



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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 04:26:15PM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
 That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up.
 
 At the present time, there are people who would rather not participate
 in such an arrangement.  They have something that works just fine for
 them.  Many are skeptical that we can deliver.  The most that we can
 do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b) execute.  If we do both
 well, we will achieve much more than we could by prior agreement.
 
 I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't yet
 have a track record or anything new to offer.  And that in such a
 context it is rather presumptuous at this point for us proclaim that
 we are the core or even are relevant.

+1 

Beautifully put, Sam.  That is exactly how I read the TDF situation, as well,
based on interactions both here and on the documentfoundation.org lists.  They
have worked hard, and they are deservedly proud of what they've achieved.

I'm glad you've taken a lead role in these outreach efforts.

Marvin Humphrey


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

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[donald_harbison]

Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote on 06/07/2011 03:49:12 PM:

 From: Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Date: 06/07/2011 03:49 PM
 Subject: RE: OpenOffice  LibreOffice
 
 Simon Phipps wrote:
 
  I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome
 would
  be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial
 push-back
  from some quarters.
 
 So let's address the push-back.
 
 The proposal, as I understand it, is for OpenOffice to exist at the ASF.
 Push-back that it should move to TDF is just a non-starter, as far as I 
can
 see, for those interested in doing OpenOffice under a permissive 
license.
 The licensing issue does not go away, so let's move on with the 
assumption
 that OpenOffice will happen here.
 
 Once we establish that predicate, the question is what happens with
 collaboration.
 
 You and I agree that core development would happen at the ASF.  TDF 
would be
 a downstream consumer of the core code, and able to incorporate 
incompatibly
 licensed code into its unique distribution.  Everyone, IBMer, TDFer, and
 other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under our
 license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under their own
 license.  From that perspective, TDF and IBM are equal players, each 
with
 their own enhancements: one set LGPL/MPL, the other closed source.
 
 Let us not conflate trademark issues with collaboration on the code. 
That
 just defocuses attention from the necessary issues, IMO.
 
--- Noel

+1

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

I was against this experiment since my first mail but I've reading and
learning a number of important facts since.

So I thought I would summarize the no vote reasons so I can
disconnect and return to my own big tasks ;-) If you've made up your
mind, plz delete as I don't want to waste any more of your time. I
read a lot and gained respect for Apache the foundation and OO the
brand. There is love people attach to that trademark and to Apache as
well. Apache could offer shit on a stick and it would have downloads
and people curious about how to contribute back.

Many of us want all of these good ideas and energies to be channeled.
The LibreOffice team is not a raging success yet and they've just
climbed some big hills alone. A drastic change to the plan today costs
merely 100 of thousands of dollars.

In absence of that, given all I have read and that the no major
alterations have been offered, this is my (unfinished) list for the
arguments against:
---
This is basically a code dump, not the set of 50(?) FTEs who know and
have created / been maintaining this code.
OpenOffice is now primarily a brand to be preserved.
This brand is in jeopardy now.
Copyleft is compelling to small LO contributors. Do you really want
to write AL2 so that IBM can sell it?
This AL2 is not within the spirit of the tradition of this codebase
because it is invoking a proprietary clause.
AL2 will make ongoing code sharing with LO impossible.
This proposal is considered to have a practical license agreement, but
grabbing code changes from LibreOffice is said to be impractical. This
is not seen as a problem.
The move from Java towards Python in LO will add more barriers.
There is a lot to be done: polish, services, plugins, mobile, etc.
The community of contributors to this podling is artificially inflated.
Naive people will show up here because of the Apache brand and the OO
brand. They will not understand what is going on.
The OO brand was given up by Oracle primarily because of the success
of LibreOffice.
LO has just built everything you need.
LO has just recruited many of the most passionate and interested
volunteers and other unaffiliated third-parties.
LibreOffice is a young community, easily confused and frightened. They
barely know this name LibreOffice. Meanwhile LO needs and would love
to have another 10-whatever people.
The OpenOffice brand would be very valuable to TDF today.
LibreOffice can maximize the value and carry it on best right now.
They need all kinds of help. They are not turning down one
contribution.
The hardware / bandwidth costs are not very expensive. It is the human costs.
It is not just a question of if you fail, but what is the damage in
that failed experiment. There is also the opportunity cost.
If this podling fails, it could hurt the value of the OpenOffice
brand, LibreOffice, waste resources (these emails are just the start),
hurt Apache's reputation, etc. Some think this could finally the GPL
debate for this codebase. It has always had a proprietary extra
clause. That is the clause that is being used to create this license.
Forks are one of the biggest reasons why free software has struggled in places.
People at IBM responsible for Notes / Symphony may get bad reviews for
building on top of a dying fork and when internal customers complain
the product isn't as good as what comes with Linux. These open
source evangelists are supposed to have their finger on the pulse of
the community, not their finger in the face of the community. I stole
that from someone ;-)
No major revisions have been proposed.
A no vote on current idea is fail-fast and the potential for a better plan.
LO see this as a danger. They received more cash donations since this
announcement.
It will only be a trickle of volunteers. If more show up, LibreOffice
can recruit in bulk.
Wise people I have consulted with in LibreOffice believe this will fail.
Some are not even worried anymore, but I am less confident.
Some believe the Apache foundation is being used to legitimize a
poorly thought-out idea.
I believe the result will be the same no matter the vote unless the
plan is changed.
Once you have decided to shoot your foot, meeting cannot achieve much.

I know I'm leaving out some points but this took time already.

I am an un-affiliated observer rooting for Linux on the desktop and
Python everywhere. I have spent years surveying and writing about
Linux so I've come to respect the Apache server very much. Any rude
bits in my mails were directed at IBM ;-) I think the foundation has
been caught in the cross-fire of the language and license battles. I
sympathize for your struggles. There is also actual proprietary
competitors to fight as well! Isn't that the most important battle?

Even if this is born, and fails, the community will pick up the
pieces. It has many times before. I believe the LO opinion of the plan
is close to unanimous and strongly-felt. My feelings are more mixed.

Perhaps this can help serve as impetus for the vote. 

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Noel J. Bergman]

Keith Curtis wrote:

 This AL2 is not within the spirit of the tradition of this codebase
 because it is invoking a proprietary clause.

The Apache License is a fully permissive, inclusive, non-viral, Open Source 
license.  You are entirely incorrect.

 AL2 will make ongoing code sharing with LO impossible.

No, again, you are wildly incorrect.  Under the Apache License, TDF has full 
ability to use all code.  The reverse, however, is not true, as their 
downstream code cannot be used.  Hence, the best outcome under the current 
licensing regime is for all core development to be done here, and for TDF to be 
a downstream consumer.

--- Noel



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

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Noel J. Bergman]

Sam Ruby wrote:
 Noel J. Bergman wrote:
  Core development would happen at the ASF.  Everyone: IBMer, TDFer, and
  other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under
  our license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under
  their own license.  From that perspective, TDF and IBM would be equal
  players, each with their own enhancements.

 That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up.

 At the present time, there are people who would rather not participate
 in such an arrangement.

You can only lead a horse to water.

 The most that we can do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b) execute.
 If we do both well, we will achieve much more than we could by prior 
 agreement.

Perhaps.  Prior agreement wouldn't suck, though. :-)  Existing developers need 
to know that they are absolutely welcomed here.

 I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't yet
 have a track record or anything new to offer.

In what sense?  What track record did we have developing LDAP until the people 
who wanted to built the Apache Directory Server here arrived?  What track 
record did we have with databases before Derby arrived?  The people currently 
working on the codebase at IBM clearly have a track record delivering their 
derived product.  We've seen other people indicate that they want to join.  And 
the more people with experience on the codebase who join, the more track record 
we have.  The whole point is to build the Community.

--- Noel



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

Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:

[...] their downstream code cannot be used.  Hence, the best outcome
under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.

Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
de-facto 'upstream'.
Let assume that in a parallel universe you happened to put your and on
a full Linux snapshot relicensed under ALv2.
Do you really think that you can then proclaim yourself 'upstream' of
Linux and start telling Linus, Greg, Alan and other: hey guys... since
we don't want to^H^H^Hcan't  take you patches, from now on _we_ get to
run the show... but don't worry, you can still translate
/Documentation and write user-space code... or you can come work for
me, under _my_ terms... your 'choice'.

And of course make that bold statement even before you read the code,
figure out how to build it or even figure out what you want to try to
do with it and how
How do you think that would fly ?

let me push that a bit further, to illustrate how ludicrous and
fallacious that license argument for upstream is. Let's say I have few
millions to spare and I outbid IBM to buy OOo from Oracle... then I
license the whole thing under a 'you can do what ever-you-want license
without attribution', but I demand that to accept any code back, you
have to assign copyright to me and renounce any right on the code you
contribute, including any 'attribution'... in these conditions the
code could flow from me to Apache, but not the other way around. Does
that make me 'upstream' ?

Furthermore, you got to choose: either you make car-part of you make a
car... but you can't do both and expect other cars to be built upon
your parts... unless you presume that every other car manufacturer
should happily and gratefully turn into a neighborhood custom-shop.
not to mention that is is much harder to stay objective with the
design decisions of parts -  to make them generally useful -  when you
have a specific car in mind... and that doesn't even require malice or
ill-intent.. it is a normal drift... If you build speedometer with the
US market in mind, because that is where the car you're making is
going to be sold, you may have the tendency to optimize things for
mph... and not even consider kph...

In short, sure the license is a problem for me, but if Apache provide
good parts, I'll have no qualm using them, and if I do  and if  I can
be useful, I'd probably also set my licensing view aside punctually
for pragmatical reason and send patches on the other side of the
fence..
But right now the main turn-off is the arrogance of all these would-be
'upstreamers', based on no other basis or 'merit' than the fact that
IBM chose them to dump 8+ millions line of C++ (and 2000+ makefile
that need OOo-customized GPLed-program to build... but that's another
story).

In these circumstance, I'm moving to Missouri (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri#State_nickname )

Norbert

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

Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice LibreOffice]

[Ross Gardler]

Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)

On 6 Jun 2011, at 02:49, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net 
 wrote:
 
 In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard.
 Did you know that OpenOffice is  already behind LibreOffice when it
 comes to ODF support? It has to do with footnote markers.
 
 Which is apropos of...
 
 ODF support is a big part of why these codebases matter. Will you need
 to create an ODF compatibility council between OpenOffice and
 LibreOffice? I'd like to see those matrices like you have for software
 licenses.

A matrix helping devs and users understand levels of ODF support (for both 
projects) would be useful, if kept up to date. Compatibility tests can help 
too. 

I look forward to your *constructive* contributions either here or in LO, as 
you prefer. 

Ross

 

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Paul Fremantle]

 I don't
 know why people bother to put the Apache text at the top of every
 file, when someone else can just as quickly remove / relicense it.

PS  Have you read the Apache License?

-- 
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
Apache Synapse PMC Chair
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
p...@wso2.com

Oxygenating the Web Service Platform, www.wso2.com

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Jukka Zitting]

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
 The purpose of this list is not to explain how to do either of these.

Exactly. Can we please kill off this thread already? It doesn't seem
to add any value to the OOo discussion.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Jim Jagielski]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 
 The first step to abandoning the Apache license is for others to
 recognize like you have that it is not a free/libre license. I don't
 know why people bother to put the Apache text at the top of every
 file, when someone else can just as quickly remove / relicense it.

In addition to the above being totally incorrect (you can't
remove/relicense), such ideological stances do nothing but
divide communities and show either one's ignorance or one's
unreasonableness.

They have no place on this list.


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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Jim Jagielski]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
 I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP 
 server.
 

It is official: Keith is a troll.

Do not feed.


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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:

 On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
 I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP 
 server.


 It is official: Keith is a troll.
 We always have.
 Do not feed.

Sorry for anything off-topic, etc. It was my first / only day on this
list. The situation is frustrating and I saw a lot of stuff I
disagreed with or was amazed by.

I believe I have made all of my points already.

Regards,

-Keith

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

OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

Hello all;

I spent some time reading these email archives to get a better
understanding of the issues. To me it seem obvious this effort should
join with the LibreOffice community.

Why open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of
software to be made proprietary in the future makes no sense to me. I
would think the job of an IBM evangelist would be to advocate
copyleft, not to evangelize lax licenses using IBM's reputation. It is
the little guys that get screwed by lax licenses. Convincing IBM to
make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who
is working on that?

LibreOffice is a success, and way ahead of you guys. There is a lot of
work to be done. You can find a productive role for anyone in
LibreOffice. I predict and hope that this project gets no support from
the community as you are wasting our time starting with these emails.
Everyone who has a choice should join LibreOffice. It has a better
license, and a community of good people, distros and companies. First
people need to understand what they are missing. One little reminder:
LibreOffice will be the official build for Linux, and will have the
best support, so I don't even understand who you expect to get help
from when few technical people will be using it.

LibreOffice could use the work of the OO core developers / testers
today. What is the status of them? They are the most important asset
in this situation, not the evangelists / suits who seem on their way
to screwing it up. I'm sure they would rather join LibreOffice.

Python is a better language than Java. Sun screwed Java in addition to
OpenOffice. The move from Java is another way LibreOffice is ahead.
Java should be abandoned by the community, but that is mostly a side
issue here.

Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558

Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future,
depending on how far you get ;-)

I think people working in MS Office would laugh at these mails.
Perhaps they would root for IBM / Apache to succeed and cause more
chaos and confusion. I sometimes think Linux on the desktop is
hopeless because there are too many people so clever they manage to
ignore basic facts.

-Keith
http://keithcu.com/

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Christian Grobmeier]

Hi Keith,

 Convincing IBM to
 make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who
 is working on that?

I would like to see ASL as official free license, not the GPL. Anyway
IBM is huge and they do some cool stuff and sometimes they don't.

 LibreOffice is a success, and way ahead of you guys. There is a lot of
 work to be done. You can find a productive role for anyone in
 LibreOffice. I predict and hope that this project gets no support from
 the community as you are wasting our time starting with these emails.

LibreOffice is a success, true. There is for sure much work to be
done. But this is not the point. At Apache we like the ASL very much.
This is one of the reasons we consider OOo - because we can work with
the license we like.

 Everyone who has a choice should join LibreOffice. It has a better
 license, and a community of good people, distros and companies.

I agree with the good people, the great distros. About the companies I
don't know much. But I strongly disagree with the better license.
There are cases were GPL is a very good choice. There are case were it
is not. I cannot say ASL is better than GPL. Its just more to my taste
and I have had great benefts of it. I am sorry, but this is leading us
into a flamewar and that does not lead to anything.

 First people need to understand what they are missing. One little reminder:
 LibreOffice will be the official build for Linux, and will have the
 best support, so I don't even understand who you expect to get help
 from when few technical people will be using it.

Thats great for LibreOffice and Linux. But the ASL does offer other
options which makes OOo interesting. You could build your software
upon the back of OOo and commercial ship it. I like that idea too.

 LibreOffice could use the work of the OO core developers / testers
 today. What is the status of them? They are the most important asset
 in this situation, not the evangelists / suits who seem on their way
 to screwing it up. I'm sure they would rather join LibreOffice.

Everybody can choose.

 Python is a better language than Java. Sun screwed Java in addition to
 OpenOffice. The move from Java is another way LibreOffice is ahead.
 Java should be abandoned by the community, but that is mostly a side
 issue here.

So what? I don't like Python. I hate its syntax. I like Java. This
paragraph doesn't help this discussion.

 I think people working in MS Office would laugh at these mails.
 Perhaps they would root for IBM / Apache to succeed and cause more
 chaos and confusion. I sometimes think Linux on the desktop is
 hopeless because there are too many people so clever they manage to
 ignore basic facts.

And your basic facts are Java is bad and the ASL is even more worse?
And people should only work on one project, even when they cannot
agree to their license?

After all I am bit offended by your email. Maybe its because I am not
a native speaker. E-Mails like this are highly philosophical and not
matter of this discussion. We are not discussion which is the better
license. We simply discuss if the podling should enter incubation or
not. Can we handle the initial load? Can we get the project started?

I would like to recommend you one link:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
I don't wont to convince you of anything, but I would like to show you
that there are two different cases served with LO and OOo

Cheers,
Christian

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be
raised here...

On 6/5/2011 3:30 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
 
 Why open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of
 software to be made proprietary in the future makes no sense to me. I
 would think the job of an IBM evangelist would be to advocate
 copyleft, not to evangelize lax licenses using IBM's reputation. It is
 the little guys that get screwed by lax licenses. Convincing IBM to
 make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who
 is working on that?

First, let me correct you, open source predates the FSF.  The OSI has
done a fine job of addressing the meanings in a way all open source
communities appreciate.  There is a specific term used by the FSF and
others, Free/Libre software.  Nobody is suggesting that any AL work
is ever Free/Libre.  There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought,
and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the two
of us can.

With that said...

 LibreOffice is a success, and way ahead of you guys

As an advocate of the one true license, I make several assumptions;
that you have a disdain for the Microsoft and OS/X ports, as those
operating systems are not Free.  You aren't particularly keen on the
BSD ports either, not because it is not Free, but that it does not
promote the cause of software freedom.  You have a goal of having
the best collection of software possible available on Free Operating
Systems, notably Linux.  Sorry for any mischaracterization, but I
would like to use your strong post to draw out this point;

I see a strong role for license advocacy from LibreOffice, and also
expect LibreOffice to extend OOo (with or without the ASF) in new
and exciting directions.  There are many developers who feel as you
do, some possibly who even refused to play ball with the Sun/Oracle
copyright assignment.  LibreOffice might be expected to remain the
premier Linux distribution of OpenOffice, as some of the best minds
in Linux/Gnome/KDE development believe as you do.

But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try
to be the preeminent Windows or OS/X port of the software, since
by definition improving GPL works for a closed source operating
system is something of an oxymoron.  Not that such a fork can't or
shouldn't continue!  But reactions such as your own are inevitable
and to some extent, an ASF project gives the LibreOffice project
more flexibility to focus on its core ecosystems, the Libre OS's.

None of this is meant to be disingenuous to any open source or
free software people or communities, it's just my reflections on
how those individuals with strongly held licensing beliefs can
(and likely will) collaborate within and across communities.




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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Joe Schaefer]

This isn't helpful Bill IMO.  Lotsa people have acculturated
to the FSF view of software licensing, and no amount of arguing
will change their mind.


We have to accept that some people within libreoffice will just
be completely turned off to the idea of collaborating with IBM
for the sole purpose (as they see it) of enabling a closed-source
product to be based on their work.  That is a position I'm quite
capable of respecting, despite my own view on the subject.

Most of our own ideology surrounding licensing is based on pragmatism
towards an intellectual commons that doesn't exclude closed source
participation.  It's not so much that we're fixated on the particulars
of the Apache License, it's that it's good enough to allow us to build
the types of communities we're interested in.  It's the development
communities and their dynamics that we focus on, and the license is
there to reduce the amount of friction we deal with when accepting
contributions.  Could it be improved?  Sure, but the cost of doing so
far outweighs the foreseeable benefits at this point.  That equation
will no doubt change as time goes on.




- Original Message 
 From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 1:47:28 PM
 Subject: Re: OpenOffice  LibreOffice
 
 In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
 one  true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be
 raised  here...
 
 On 6/5/2011 3:30 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
  
  Why  open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of
   software to be made proprietary in the future makes no sense to me. I
   would think the job of an IBM evangelist would be to advocate
  copyleft,  not to evangelize lax licenses using IBM's reputation. It is
  the little  guys that get screwed by lax licenses. Convincing IBM to
  make GPL their  official free license would be useful evangelism. Who
  is working on  that?
 
 First, let me correct you, open source predates the FSF.  The  OSI has
 done a fine job of addressing the meanings in a way all open  source
 communities appreciate.  There is a specific term used by the FSF  and
 others, Free/Libre software.  Nobody is suggesting that any AL  work
 is ever Free/Libre.  There is a multiplicity of Open Source  thought,
 and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the  two
 of us can.
 
 With that said...
 
  LibreOffice is a success,  and way ahead of you guys
 
 As an advocate of the one true license, I make  several assumptions;
 that you have a disdain for the Microsoft and OS/X  ports, as those
 operating systems are not Free.  You aren't particularly  keen on the
 BSD ports either, not because it is not Free, but that it does  not
 promote the cause of software freedom.  You have a goal of  having
 the best collection of software possible available on Free  Operating
 Systems, notably Linux.  Sorry for any mischaracterization,  but I
 would like to use your strong post to draw out this point;
 
 I see  a strong role for license advocacy from LibreOffice, and also
 expect  LibreOffice to extend OOo (with or without the ASF) in new
 and exciting  directions.  There are many developers who feel as you
 do, some possibly  who even refused to play ball with the Sun/Oracle
 copyright assignment.   LibreOffice might be expected to remain the
 premier Linux distribution of  OpenOffice, as some of the best minds
 in Linux/Gnome/KDE development believe  as you do.
 
 But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even  try
 to be the preeminent Windows or OS/X port of the software, since
 by  definition improving GPL works for a closed source operating
 system is  something of an oxymoron.  Not that such a fork can't or
 shouldn't  continue!  But reactions such as your own are inevitable
 and to some  extent, an ASF project gives the LibreOffice project
 more flexibility to  focus on its core ecosystems, the Libre OS's.
 
 None of this is meant to be  disingenuous to any open source or
 free software people or communities, it's  just my reflections on
 how those individuals with strongly held licensing  beliefs can
 (and likely will) collaborate within and across  communities.
 
 
 
 
 -
 To  unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For  additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[robert_weir]

Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM:

 
 Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
 http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558
 
 Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future,
 depending on how far you get ;-)
 

Please do check back in a year and see how we're doing.  I'm sure your 
readers would benefit from what you'll be able to report at that point.

-Rob

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Ian Lynch]

On 5 June 2011 18:47, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:

 In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
 one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be
 raised here...

 But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try
 to be the preeminent Windows or OS/X port of the software, since
 by definition improving GPL works for a closed source operating
 system is something of an oxymoron.


It's worth pointing out that many of the LO people are not necessarily
religious about the license. Most migrated from a situation where their
software was on Windows in much bigger volume than Linux. (I'm not sure of
the Linux/Windows balance of LO installations but its likely to be more
towards Linux simply by pre-installation) They might decide to focus on
GNU/Linux distros but that is really a matter for their community. One of
the concerns is  that the license issue could split the existing LO
community since some might be unconcerned about working on AL code and
others might not want to touch it. In a way the problem is because there
will be differences of view on that and you either adopt code or you don't,
you can't have a halfway compromise and keep a common code base.

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Joe Schaefer]

Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with
your general aptitude or social skill level.  By all means,
if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be
delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as
the org exists.



- Original Message 
 From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 4:57:32 PM
 Subject: Re: OpenOffice  LibreOffice
 
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com  wrote:
  This isn't helpful Bill IMO.  Lotsa people have  acculturated
  to the FSF view of software licensing, and no amount of  arguing
  will change their mind.
 
 
  We have to  accept that some people within libreoffice will just
  be completely  turned off to the idea of collaborating with IBM
  for the sole purpose  (as they see it) of enabling a closed-source
  product to be based on  their work.  That is a position I'm quite
  capable of respecting, despite  my own view on the subject.
 
 My complaint about IBM is that it should know  better than to endorse
 lax  licenses.
 
 -Keith
 
 -
 To  unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For  additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:04 PM,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
 Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM:


 Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
 http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558

 Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future,
 depending on how far you get ;-)


 Please do check back in a year and see how we're doing.  I'm sure your
 readers would benefit from what you'll be able to report at that point.

 -Rob

Lots of bravado. Of course, that comes from being a suit and being
able to get your way and order other people around.

I don't trust your opinion on how successful you will be as you've
already made wrong decisions and not had a great first week. As a
writer, I can influence the outcome ;-)

Anyway, the only thing that matters is the status of the remaining
core OO developers. If we can get them working on LibreOffice, that
would be very helpful. Others of you have Notes / Symphony, etc. to
deliver.

-Keith

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with
 your general aptitude or social skill level.  By all means,
 if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be
 delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as
 the org exists.

I don't represent LibreOffice so I don't have to be polite. I'm just
going to make a few words and then leave and work on my own tasks. I'm
a writer hawking books, so if you quote me, please link to my book.

I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP server.

I try to be polite / constructive, you should see what I delete. I
want people to work together in the same codebases. Things go faster
that way. Forking is expensive and damaging social engineering.
LibreOffice is a great organization with great people and you would be
foolish to not work with them and leverage what they've done. I'll
work on quitting being juvenile if you work on quitting ignoring
facts.

-Keith

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF
 and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms.  Instead they
 worked out terms with us.  We aren't all that picky about
 new initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process
 to ferret out sustainable activity from those that aren't.

It is great that Oracle gave up OO rather than sit on it. We should be
grateful to Oracle for this gift. Note that LibreOffice deserves most
of the credit for this opportunity.

I wouldn't expect Oracle to give it to the TDF. Apache has IBM backing
which looks more credible.


 I'm happy that there are a number of people who still care about
 the OOo brand that are willing to work here under our rules.
 For those that aren't, and are more interested in the LO brand, have
 an appropriate amount of fun.  We'd still like you to collaborate with
 us even if it just means the collaboration is one-way- we're funny
 like that.  If our code improves your project, all we ask is that
 you respect the license it came with.

It isn't about the OOo brand or the LO brand. This is about the
codebase, and getting as many people working in the same codebase as
possible. That enforces division of labor. You can help fix each
other's bugs if you share the same bug database. LibreOffice has
already moved to GIT. It will get harder to share code as the trees
diverge. You say you won't be the benefit of LibreOfice's work and yet
I am amazed you don't care.

Are you saying you don't want LibreOffice to relicense your Apache
licensed work? Note of course you can only ask ;-) It seems a
paradoxical thing to ask for, to create a permissive license, and then
insist it stay permissive.

-Keith

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Joe Schaefer]

- Original Message 

 From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 6:12:14 PM
 Subject: Re: OpenOffice  LibreOffice
 
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com  wrote:
  Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically,  TDF
  and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms.  Instead they
   worked out terms with us.  We aren't all that picky about
  new  initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process
  to ferret out  sustainable activity from those that aren't.
 
 It is great that Oracle gave  up OO rather than sit on it. We should be
 grateful to Oracle for this gift.  Note that LibreOffice deserves most
 of the credit for this  opportunity.
 
 I wouldn't expect Oracle to give it to the TDF. Apache has  IBM backing
 which looks more credible.
 
 
  I'm happy that  there are a number of people who still care about
  the OOo brand that are  willing to work here under our rules.
  For those that aren't, and are  more interested in the LO brand, have
  an appropriate amount of fun.   We'd still like you to collaborate with
  us even if it just means the  collaboration is one-way- we're funny
  like that.  If our code improves  your project, all we ask is that
  you respect the license it came  with.
 
 It isn't about the OOo brand or the LO brand. This is about  the
 codebase, and getting as many people working in the same codebase  as
 possible. That enforces division of labor. You can help fix  each
 other's bugs if you share the same bug database. LibreOffice  has
 already moved to GIT. It will get harder to share code as the  trees
 diverge. You say you won't be the benefit of LibreOfice's work and  yet
 I am amazed you don't care.

We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept
voluntary contributions.  Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository
looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that.  What we're
hoping for is to attract devs who work on LO to join our project as
committers, so whatever contributions they'd like to offer can get folded
back to us without a lot of fuss.

As I said earlier, the hope is that LO will pull from us for the core
bits, and almost immediately we'll have the bits stored in svn mirrored
to our github acct to facilitate that.  While I wouldn't recommend this
any time soon, at some point the ASF may try to tie access to the OOo brand
to the use of a substantial amount of our software, so as not to confuse
the public about the nature of the use of the mark.

 
 Are you saying you don't want  LibreOffice to relicense your Apache
 licensed work? Note of course you can  only ask ;-) It seems a
 paradoxical thing to ask for, to create a permissive  license, and then
 insist it stay  permissive.

I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an
apache.org list.  Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects
to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that 
doesn't invalidate our license.  There are treatments of this subject
by FSF peeps on the net if you are interested (no, I'm not going to
look them up here).

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

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Gavin McDonald]

 -Original Message-
 From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Monday, 6 June 2011 7:32 AM
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Subject: Re: OpenOffice  LibreOffice
 
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
 wrote:
  Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with your
  general aptitude or social skill level.  By all means, if you insist
  on making more juvenile remarks we will be delighted to serve them up
  to the public for as long as the org exists.
 
 I don't represent LibreOffice so I don't have to be polite. I'm just going to
 make a few words and then leave and work on my own tasks. I'm a writer
 hawking books, so if you quote me, please link to my book.
 
 I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP
 server.

It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ?
You are slating all these projects and all the committers that work on them
because a choice was made externally to the ASF that you personally do
not like?

 
 I try to be polite / constructive, you should see what I delete. I want people
 to work together in the same codebases. Things go faster that way. Forking is
 expensive and damaging social engineering.

You see, I've seen you and others mention forking is bad, blah blah, yet 
LibreOffice
IS A FORK of OpenOffice. What a contradictory statement. What a huge one.

 LibreOffice is a great organization with great people and you would be foolish
 to not work with them and leverage what they've done.

Has anyone here said they would not welcome folks from LibreOffice to come and 
help?

 I'll work on quitting
 being juvenile if you work on quitting ignoring facts.

You are ignoring the fact that LibreOffice is a fork and yet you say forks are 
damaging.
Git loves forking, LibreOffice uses Git.


yep

Gav...

 
 -Keith
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:

 We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept
 voluntary contributions.  Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository
 looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that.  What we're
 hoping for is to attract devs who work on LO to join our project as
 committers, so whatever contributions they'd like to offer can get folded
 back to us without a lot of fuss.

As the trees diverge, it will get harder to give code to you both.
What if some changes depend on other GPL code? Your insistence on
Apache licensed work will make it hard for many people to contribute
to you. I find it ironic that the Apache license is permissive, but
the people don't want any free/libre code mixed with it. That is not
permissive.


 As I said earlier, the hope is that LO will pull from us for the core
 bits, and almost immediately we'll have the bits stored in svn mirrored
 to our github acct to facilitate that.  While I wouldn't recommend this
 any time soon, at some point the ASF may try to tie access to the OOo brand
 to the use of a substantial amount of our software, so as not to confuse
 the public about the nature of the use of the mark.

LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of
your software. Given that LibreOffice is what caused Oracle to give
up their trademark, I would think you would offer it to them also.



 I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an
 apache.org list.  Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects
 to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that
 doesn't invalidate our license.  There are treatments of this subject
 by FSF peeps on the net if you are interested (no, I'm not going to
 look them up here).

I didn't want to argue about this minor point either, just point out
that it seems paradoxical. If I got some interesting Apache-licensed
code, the first thing I would do is put GPL at the top. Microsoft has
created licenses that say that code can't be used in conjunction with
copyleft.

-Keith

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Joe Schaefer]

- Original Message 

 From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 6:45:15 PM
 Subject: Re: OpenOffice  LibreOffice
 
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com  wrote:
 
  We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we  only accept
  voluntary contributions.  Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's  repository
  looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that.   What we're
  hoping for is to attract devs who work on LO to join our  project as
  committers, so whatever contributions they'd like to offer  can get folded
  back to us without a lot of fuss.
 
 As the trees  diverge, it will get harder to give code to you both.
 What if some changes  depend on other GPL code? Your insistence on
 Apache licensed work will make  it hard for many people to contribute
 to you. I find it ironic that the  Apache license is permissive, but
 the people don't want any free/libre code  mixed with it. That is not
 permissive.
 
 
  As I said earlier,  the hope is that LO will pull from us for the core
  bits, and almost  immediately we'll have the bits stored in svn mirrored
  to our github  acct to facilitate that.  While I wouldn't recommend this
  any time soon,  at some point the ASF may try to tie access to the OOo brand
  to the use  of a substantial amount of our software, so as not to confuse
  the public  about the nature of the use of the mark.
 
 LibreOffice will for a long time  be using a substantial amount of
 your software. Given that LibreOffice is  what caused Oracle to give
 up their trademark, I would think you would offer  it to them also.

We are a type-O org.  Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own.
That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our projects,
but somehow they manage to release useful software.

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote:


 It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ?

Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on
my laptop or server.
http://projects.apache.org/indexes/language.html

Apache is clearly useful to lots of other people, but by picking Java
it has hurt its situation in the Linux community with people like me.


 You see, I've seen you and others mention forking is bad, blah blah, yet 
 LibreOffice
 IS A FORK of OpenOffice. What a contradictory statement. What a huge one.

LibreOffice was a useful fork. Sun / Oracle were screwing things up.
Now that Oracle has given up OO, the fork can be undone.


 Git loves forking, LibreOffice uses Git.

That isn't the social engineering I'm talking about.

-Keith

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Dave Fisher]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
 We are a type-O org.  Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own.
 That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our projects,
 but somehow they manage to release useful software.
 
 It is an interesting analogy, but seems not accurate because you can't
 mix with anything but type-O. The Linux kernel seems more of a type-O
 because it accepts both kinds of licenses.

You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility

Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails.

Regards,
Dave


 
 -Keith
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 


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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Ralph Goers]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote:
 
 
 It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ?
 
 Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on
 my laptop or server.
 http://projects.apache.org/indexes/language.html
 
 Apache is clearly useful to lots of other people, but by picking Java
 it has hurt its situation in the Linux community with people like me.


Please, before you post here could you get some understanding of the ASF?  The 
Apache Software Foundation doesn't pick anything.  If you want to code in 
SNOBOL, Pascal, Fortran, Mumps, APL, C/C++, Assembly or any other language we 
really don't care.  All we care about is that you can build a community and 
that your code is released under the Apache license.  Obviously, there are a 
ton of people who disagree with you because they all proposed Java-based 
projects and attracted developers.

As for the support of IBM you mentioned in another email, I almost fell over 
laughing.  First, the ASF is made up entirely of individuals, both as 
committers and members. No corporations allowed.  We do accept sponsorships 
both from individuals and corporations. What that buys you is what is 
documented at http://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html.  Primarily the 
benefit consists entirely of what you see on 
http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html.

I posted these in a prior post but you either didn't read them or just skimmed 
them. Please read them again.

[1] http://theapacheway.com/ 
[2] https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/incubation_at_apache_what_s
[3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#incubator

Ralph

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Benson Margulies]

Keith,

You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension about how the ASF works.

The ASF did not 'choose Java.'

The ASF provides a legal and technical infrastructure for human beings
to collaborate. It asks them to work within certain principles of
governance and, indeed, licensing.

Funny thing, many of us felt that the best way to solve our collective
problems was to write code in Java.

If we were the sort of people who felt that a particular philosophical
approach to 'freedom' was paramount, we wouldn't be here at all.
Though, I'd point out, the FSF-inspired anti-Java campaign seems to
have softened quite a bit over the last few years.

Understanding this will help you to understand the situation at hand.
On the one hand, Oracle has granted this code to the Foundation. On
the other hand, a group of people have shown up and made a proposal to
erect a community around that code.

Really, truly, that's all that we need around here, so long as there's
reasonable evidence that the community can, in fact, conform to the
Foundation's requirements. It would be wonderful if One Big Happy Open
Office.Org Family results from this event, but we don't have to have a
Diet of Worms convene and agree on the outlines of that family in
advance.


--benson margulies

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:

 You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility

 Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails.

I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, the larger
point seems that the Linux kernel is a better type-O because it
accepts all kinds of changes.

-Keith

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Ralph Goers]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 Please, before you post here could you get some understanding of the ASF?  
 The Apache Software Foundation doesn't pick anything.
 
 I realize that everyone makes their own choice, it just seems that
 Java is the dominant language. Whereas it is being phased out of
 LibreOffice.
 
 All we care about is that you can build a community and that your code is 
 released under the Apache license.
 
 It seems some want more than that, because they also don't want it to
 be relicensed and made GPL later. The Apache license doesn't say
 anything about it, so saying you just want the Apache license does not
 seem totally true.

We don't care what users do with our software.  Those who are smart and create 
proprietary products with it contribute back because they don't want to 
maintain a proprietary fork, but we don't care if they don't..  They are happy 
to extend it with their own proprietary stuff and we are fine with that.
 
 
 As for the support of IBM you mentioned in another email, I almost fell 
 over laughing.
 
 There are a number of people being paid by IBM on this list who are
 involved with this OO effort.

So what? They are here as individuals. I get paid by an employer too. Although 
I take their interests into account I am not bound by them.

 
 I read your stuff. I find it paradoxical that the Apache org claims to
 be pragmatic, yet insists on the Apache license + no relicensing.

What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You just 
can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's couldn't use 
it and then relicense it.  If you can't grasp that concept then there really is 
no point to further discussion.  

Ralph


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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

 What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You 
 just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's 
 couldn't use it and then relicense it.  If you can't grasp that concept then 
 there really is no point to further discussion.


Joe Shafer wrote this:
--
I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an
apache.org list.  Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects
to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that
doesn't invalidate our license.


Seems like he is saying he doesn't want people to change the license
of Apache software.

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Dave Fisher]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
 
 You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility
 
 Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails.
 
 I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, the larger
 point seems that the Linux kernel is a better type-O because it
 accepts all kinds of changes.

The statement was ASL is a universal donor, in the blood analogy a type O-.

You are saying that it is best to be a universal recipient - in blood terms 
AB+. Not type O.

To continue, an individual with O- blood has to be extremely careful whose 
blood they accept. The individual with AB+ need not care much about the type.

This is a unique opportunity to declare a substantial portion of the OOo/LOo 
blood supply be magically converted to type O- from AB+. Isn't that the real 
wave of the magic wand that Oracle has given the whole community by this 
Software Grant.

LO/TDF would be free to convert Apache OO blood into whatever type of supply 
they choose.

Since the TDF currently requires contributions to be dual typed (licensed) then 
this allows the fork to be relicensed by LO/TDF on perhaps better terms for the 
LOo community.

Regards,
Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Joe Schaefer]

Sublicensing and how it relates to the original source 
bits and contributions based on those bits is a complex
issue.  The license on those bits doesn't change simply
because you slapped a different license on the work as
a whole.

In any case I fail to see how this line of inquiry is of
any benefit to anyone, so lets just drop it.


- Original Message 
 From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 7:40:31 PM
 Subject: Re: OpenOffice  LibreOffice
 
 
  What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts  content. You 
just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise  user's 
couldn't use it and then relicense it.  If you can't grasp that concept  then 
there really is no point to further discussion.
 
 
 Joe Shafer  wrote this:
 --
 I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with  a GPL fan on an
 apache.org list.  Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects
 to respect  the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that
 doesn't invalidate  our license.
 
 
 Seems like he is saying he doesn't want people to  change the license
 of Apache  software.
 
 -
 To  unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For  additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Dave Fisher]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 
 What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You 
 just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's 
 couldn't use it and then relicense it.  If you can't grasp that concept then 
 there really is no point to further discussion.
 
 
 Joe Shafer wrote this:
 --
 I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an
 apache.org list.  Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects
 to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that
 doesn't invalidate our license.
 
 
 Seems like he is saying he doesn't want people to change the license
 of Apache software.

There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the 
license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

This will help you properly research the topic as well: 
http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html

Regards,
Dave

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


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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Ralph Goers]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 
 What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You 
 just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's 
 couldn't use it and then relicense it.  If you can't grasp that concept then 
 there really is no point to further discussion.
 
 
 Joe Shafer wrote this:
 --
 I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an
 apache.org list.  Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects
 to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that
 doesn't invalidate our license.
 
 
 Seems like he is saying he doesn't want people to change the license
 of Apache software.

Then you haven't read and comprehended the Apache license.

Ralph
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:

 On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:

 You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility

 Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails.

 I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, the larger
 point seems that the Linux kernel is a better type-O because it
 accepts all kinds of changes.

 The statement was ASL is a universal donor, in the blood analogy a type O-.

 You are saying that it is best to be a universal recipient - in blood terms 
 AB+. Not type O.

I think it depends on who is the donor and who is the recipient in
this analogy because there is code flowing in both directions, but my
point here is that the Linux kernel situation is more pragmatic in
that it works with code of multiple licenses.

I just want you to think about sharing bug lists. Etc. LibreOffice has
your latest code already integrated, I believe. Given LibreOffice's
success, and the fact that it has just built everything you need, this
has the potential to cause confusion and wasted efforts. You can do an
infinite amount of proprietary or Apache software on top of
LibreOffice. I think some should think about building Notes and
Symphony on top LibreOffice. That is plenty of work and will provide
big benefits.

-Keith

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:

 There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the 
 license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

 This will help you properly research the topic as well: 
 http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html

 Regards,
 Dave

The redistribution terms only have to be respected until I relicense
the code. That can be done via grep.

-Keith

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

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

As a type O-positive human, I think the metaphor works quite well.

I can donate blood that is compatible with folks that I can't receive blood 
from.  In fact, I can only receive blood of another O-type individual (positive 
or negative).  Yet my blood is compatible with that of all  *-positive 
individuals (* = A, B, AB).   I donate regularly (every 8-10 weeks or so), 
willingly and without need for compensation.

I didn't get to choose my blood type.  But I can choose to be an ALv2 
contributor and know that, technically, there is no one unable to use that 
contribution if they are able to use any at all.  I can also continue to 
contribute to LibreOffice, although it is unlikely that I will ever contribute 
code there.  That's like donating at a blood bank that only transfuses a single 
non-O type.  Likewise, I do not read code having non-permissive licenses if I 
can avoid it.  It is toxic for me (metaphorically and for practical reasons).

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 16:04
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice  LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:

 We are a type-O org.  Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own.
 That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our 
 projects, but somehow they manage to release useful software.

It is an interesting analogy, but seems not accurate because you can't mix with 
anything but type-O. The Linux kernel seems more of a type-O because it accepts 
both kinds of licenses.

-Keith

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


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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Greg Stein]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:

 There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the 
 license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

 This will help you properly research the topic as well: 
 http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html

 Regards,
 Dave

 The redistribution terms only have to be respected until I relicense
 the code. That can be done via grep.

You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must
respect its terms.

Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an
ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header
off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation.

-g

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Sam Ruby]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:

 There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read 
 the license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

 This will help you properly research the topic as well: 
 http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html

 Regards,
 Dave

 The redistribution terms only have to be respected until I relicense
 the code. That can be done via grep.

 You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must
 respect its terms.

 Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an
 ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header
 off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation.

An example of how another project has dealt with this:

http://wikis.sun.com/display/GlassFish/Copyrights

 -g

- Sam Ruby

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:

 You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must
 respect its terms.

 Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an
 ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header
 off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation.

I have not seen a lawsuit over an Apache license, though I've only
been watching for a few years. Is it possible?

I believe I can sublicense it or something, with terms that make the
whole thing proprietary. People can make Apache code proprietary
somehow, right? That is the big benefit of it. And when I've done
that, I don't have to worry about the old redistribution terms or any
of the old terms anymore.

-Keith

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Sam Ruby]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:

 You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must
 respect its terms.

 Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an
 ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header
 off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation.

 I have not seen a lawsuit over an Apache license, though I've only
 been watching for a few years. Is it possible?

I can confirm that we have gotten people to address compliance issues
that we have found.  And the fact that we have managed to do so
without resorting to a lawsuit is goodness.

And, no, I have no intention naming names.

 I believe I can sublicense it or something, with terms that make the
 whole thing proprietary. People can make Apache code proprietary
 somehow, right? That is the big benefit of it. And when I've done
 that, I don't have to worry about the old redistribution terms or any
 of the old terms anymore.

Fully disagree.  I encourage you to read the terms.

 -Keith

- Sam Ruby

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:

 Fully disagree.  I encourage you to read the terms.

 -Keith

 - Sam Ruby

This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says:

The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not
require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the
same license.

-Keith

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 6/5/2011 6:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:

 We are a type-O org.  Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own.
 That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our projects,
 but somehow they manage to release useful software.
 
 It is an interesting analogy, but seems not accurate because you can't
 mix with anything but type-O. The Linux kernel seems more of a type-O
 because it accepts both kinds of licenses.

Wrong, Keith.  This isn't the sort of claim you want to make while
attempting to become a respected writer on software topics, although
you are in good company with many technical journalists.

With the exception of pure-BSD purists (who reject the patent clauses)
AL can be mixed with any code to come out with the more restrictive of
the licenses.

AL + BSD == AL
AL + MPL == MPL
AL + GPL == GPL

The following are not possible;

AL + BSD != BSD
AL + MPL != MPL
AL + GPL != AL

So the input AL code can be combined as a donor to any effort and result
in an appropriate license to the finished effort.

The converse cannot be said of GPL, which explicitly prohibits additional
terms or conditions on the resulting license.  GPL is type AB+, as it can
not produce other outcome.

Perhaps your ignorance comes from medical science, though?  You supposedly
learned this in 6th grade, but I wouldn't brag about your report card.

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Ralph Goers]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
 
 Fully disagree.  I encourage you to read the terms.
 
 -Keith
 
 - Sam Ruby
 
 This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says:
 
 The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not
 require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the
 same license.

You are confusing copyright and software licensing.

You can modify software that is under the Apache license and use it in a 
proprietary product but you have to do it in a way that complies with the 
license and copyright law.  You can use also use software that is under the 
LGPL in a proprietary product. The purpose of this list is not to explain how 
to do either of these.

Ralph
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 6/5/2011 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
 
 With the exception of pure-BSD purists (who reject the patent clauses)
 AL can be mixed with any code to come out with the more restrictive of
 the licenses.
 
 AL + BSD == AL
 AL + MPL == MPL
 AL + GPL == GPL
 
 The following are not possible;
 
 AL + BSD != BSD
 AL + MPL != MPL
 AL + GPL != AL

Escuse the typo, getting tired of this thread.  AL + MPL != AL.



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

/ignore troll [was: OpenOffice LibreOffice]

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 6/5/2011 3:56 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
 wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
 
 others, Free/Libre software.  Nobody is suggesting that any AL work
 is ever Free/Libre.  There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought,
 and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the two
 of us can.
 
 The first step to abandoning the Apache license is for others to
 recognize like you have that it is not a free/libre license. I don't
 know why people bother to put the Apache text at the top of every
 file, when someone else can just as quickly remove / relicense it.
 Anyway, that is for another day other than the fact that I think IBM
 should be endorsing the LGPL / GPL as their preferred license.

Correct, it is not a free/libre license, doesn't try to be, doesn't
claim to be, you cannot strip the copyright without permission, you
can only relicense under appropriate terms.

What you believe IBM should do likely has no bearing on what IBM will
choose to do.

We are now 50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a
contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing.

Let's remember please to not feed the trolls, and move on.

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

Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:

 This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says:

 The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not
 require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the
 same license.

 You are confusing copyright and software licensing.

I think:
Copyright is a bunch of laws and court cases.
Licenses are copyright-related text that gets applied to software and
other things.

If modified versions of the software don't require the same license,
then any terms and restrictions you bring up no longer apply because
that is the old license you are now referring to.


 You can modify software that is under the Apache license and use it in a 
 proprietary product but you have to do it in a way that complies with the 
 license and copyright law.

 You can use also use software that is under the LGPL in a proprietary product.

Yes, that is why Oracle can depend on Linux, Notes and Symphony can
build on top of LibreOffice, etc.

-Keith

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

Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice LibreOffice]

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:

 We are now 50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a
 contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing.

 Let's remember please to not feed the trolls, and move on.

I was only kidding about this being a promotional thing.

I have made contributions to all of these codebases ;-)

In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard.
Did you know that OpenOffice is  already behind LibreOffice when it
comes to ODF support? It has to do with footnote markers.

-Keith

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

Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice LibreOffice]

[William A. Rowe Jr.]

On 6/5/2011 8:26 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net 
 wrote:

 We are now 50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a
 contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing.

 Let's remember please to not feed the trolls, and move on.
 
 I was only kidding about this being a promotional thing.

Well, at least only half kidding...

 I have made contributions to all of these codebases ;-)

If so, then I stand corrected, mea culpa.

 In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard.
 Did you know that OpenOffice is  already behind LibreOffice when it
 comes to ODF support? It has to do with footnote markers.

Which is apropos of...

Let's be clear, you have strong GPL opinions.  There are many forums for
that decades-old debate; this list not being one of them.  Oracle made
a choice.  Therefore Sam or another iPMC member or I will shut down each
thread that debates the merits of AL/GPL, these were already detailed
much better elsewhere and don't bear repeating.

I expect that an Apache OOo project will have a great deal of respect
for the TDF/LO community and results based on the past five days of very
respectful discussion.  If the converse happens, that's great too.  None
of this is particularly relevant to the question at hand; should the ASF
accept a podling proposal to the incubator with an AL code grant from
Oracle?  If your comments don't bear on this question, please hold them
for the dev@ list or take them elsewhere.



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

Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice LibreOffice]

[Keith Curtis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:

 In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard.
 Did you know that OpenOffice is  already behind LibreOffice when it
 comes to ODF support? It has to do with footnote markers.

 Which is apropos of...

ODF support is a big part of why these codebases matter. Will you need
to create an ODF compatibility council between OpenOffice and
LibreOffice? I'd like to see those matrices like you have for software
licenses.


 Let's be clear, you have strong GPL opinions.  There are many forums for
 that decades-old debate; this list not being one of them.  Oracle made
 a choice.  Therefore Sam or another iPMC member or I will shut down each
 thread that debates the merits of AL/GPL, these were already detailed
 much better elsewhere and don't bear repeating.

I don't care about the license issue either. I have dropped it. I am
concerned about the social engineering (costs) of forks and of
duplicate teams doing the same thing. I have seen the Office
codebases, and I know that if you guys work efficiently now, good
things will happen soon.


 I expect that an Apache OOo project will have a great deal of respect
 for the TDF/LO community and results based on the past five days of very
 respectful discussion.  If the converse happens, that's great too.  None
 of this is particularly relevant to the question at hand; should the ASF
 accept a podling proposal to the incubator with an AL code grant from
 Oracle?  If your comments don't bear on this question, please hold them
 for the dev@ list or take them elsewhere.


I am concerned only with what this podling would do. If that
discussion is premature, we can leave it till later. However, it seems
like knowing what you will do will help you figure out if you should
do it.

-Keith

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

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice - That's Not What Re-Licensing Is

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

If you remove the ALv2 license and don't provide the notice that the license 
requires, you are in violation and are infringing the Apache copyright.   
Likewise, adding a copyright notice to an intact public domain work is not a 
claim that is defensible.

There's a misunderstanding about relicensing in this discussion, and I have 
been guilty of it in my casual use of the term as well.

You can't relicense the copyright on something that is not your work and to 
which you do not have a grant of copyright.  It is not possible to legally 
usurp a copyright and nothing in ALv2 permits that (since it is *not* a 
copyright transfer, it is a license).

What the ALv2 (I am practicing this form as part of being kept after school to 
clean erasers) does is permit incorporation in derivative works, compilations, 
combined works, etc., without limitation.  But *your* license covers only the 
part that is your work.  The material sourced under the ALv2, to the extent 
that it remains, is still under the ALv2, although licensed to you and 
sublicensed to the recipients of your work.  In short, you can never legally 
claim copyright of that which is not your work unless you have been granted a 
copyright transfer.  The ALv2 doesn't do that.  The ALv2 is generous in how you 
can use that work in conjunction with yours and also licenses other exclusive 
rights of copyright owners that give you great freedom of use.  But claiming 
copyright and substituting your own license is not OK.
 
When LO incorporates any of the Apache OpenOffice.org code, it will have to 
treat it like third-party code the way it does now for material under 
compatible licenses from other third parties.  This is the same thing that IBM 
would have to do (if they have no other license that they can rely on from Sun 
or Oracle), and certainly what Microsoft or Google would have to do.

The sense in which re-licensing applies here is that, so long as everything is 
compatible, the derivative can be under any license whatsoever, and distributed 
in any manner whatsoever, so long as the non-negotiable conditions of ALv2 are 
honored (and hence the license is honored).  Similarly, if the producer of the 
derivative decides to change their license, but everything is still compatible, 
the ALv2 is no obstacle to that.  That is what the re-licensing opportunity 
is.  It would be great if there were a better term for this.  But the key thing 
is the ALv2 code is not relicensed, but the work it is combined into, 
derivative in, compiled in, whatever, can be produced with a different license 
and that license can be changed by someone who has that right.

Furthermore, and don't confuse this with re-licensing, even though the code is 
used in a proprietary product, it does not make the ALv2-licensed portions the 
property of the producer.  What the ALv2 does is give that producer a license 
to their doing that with the ALv2 subject matter and not requiring that their 
source code be made public and with no obligation to contribute back to Apache.

I guess my next after-school will be cleaning erasers for Larry Rosen.

 - Dennis

PS: This is why it is also important for projects to manage the provenance of 
every bit of their code, because third-party licenses still adhere to the 
extent that is required.  It also helps defend against claims that 
such-and-such code was plagiarized in a manner that violated some other license 
that the same or similar code can be found wrapped in.

PPS: That is also why one should read the freakin' ALv2 license at the provided 
link and not take advice from Wikipedia.  The language of the license is plain 
enough.

-Original Message-
From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cBANLkTikPBnwLVtntcdhEYCjxxS774T+t=g...@mail.gmail.com%3e
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 17:18
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice  LibreOffice

[ ... ]

The redistribution terms only have to be respected until I relicense the code. 
That can be done via grep.

-Keith

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


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

RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

In support of Sam's point here, I add that OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice.org 
already provide the required ALv2 notices in their listings of third-party 
dependencies.  The list is installed as part of every install of one of the 
distributions.  I even included a copy of one of the latest LibreOffice ones in 
an earlier post.  So folks curious about this should satisfy themselves that 
the LibreOffice office team already knows how to handle this.  

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktinrzfojmgsjh9b9epm6ad568ma...@mail.gmail.com%3e
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 17:47
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice  LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cBANLkTik1Gbt5GER3==SJK=1cvspp5za...@mail.gmail.com%3e
[ ... ]

 You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must 
 respect its terms.

 Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an
 ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header 
 off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation.

An example of how another project has dealt with this:

http://wikis.sun.com/display/GlassFish/Copyrights

 -g

- Sam Ruby


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