Hi Marco, since you specifically asked me to comment -
Marco Marinello wrote: > first of all, I'd like to state for those that are not into the current > status quo that this proposal will mainly affect the "Online" project at > TDF's infra. > Conversely, I believe it would be wise to structure the atticization process (and its reversal) independently of the LibreOffice Online question. It is not the first, and not the last time, that code we host becomes effectively unmaintained (for any number of reasons). You further state: > In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the fact that I’m > completely unhappy with the “attic” proposal as a solution for the > Online situation and hope we can all work together to allow TDF to > still consider Online a part of the LibreOffice suite. > Let's please dis-entangle this (ideally discussing Online remedies in a separate thread). You state you're unhappy with the attic proposal, but don't provide any specific criticism (change this clause, avoid that trap, etc). Is it that you would be fine with it, if -- hypothetically -- cppunit would become unmaintained? Or is there a more fundamental problem with it, from your PoV? If yes, can you suggest changes? On the Online topic, I've got nothing much to add (beyond the fact that the development from 2020 was rather regrettable). I'm also biased (as likely you are, and others with strong opinion on the question). Allow me one comment though: Marco Marinello wrote: > Kendy wrote: > > Marco Marinello píše v Po 20. 12. 2021 v 20:34 +0100: > >> I have already said this many times but I want to repeat it: it > >> has to be clear (and hopefully stated by legal contracts) to the > >> companies working in the LibreOffice ecosystem that they cannot > >> wake up one day and bring their development outside the > >> LibreOffice project. They cannot stay with one foot inside the > >> ecosystem, contributing to it, and with the other one bringing > >> their development effort outside. This is something the next > >> board should focus on. > >> > > Given that we are doing FLOSS (Free / Libre / Open Source > > Software) here, I wonder how would you like to frame such a legal > > contract, given that the "right to fork" is one of the basic Free > > Software freedoms? And what if it was not a company, but another > > group (do you remember IceWeasel?) > > > IANAL so I have no clue on how this kind of contract could be > settled but I want to say that is quite logical that you cannot both > support and oppose an entity. In Italy, the law states that if you > leave your job and create a company that will do the same job you > were doing as an employee, taxes will be much higher. > This idea sadly runs counter to *everything* that matters for FLOSS licenses and projects. Let's please put it to rest. Once the code is open, everyone is free to take it, fork it, and do with it what they please (according to the terms of the license, and perhaps by rebranding). All remedies I can think of are much worse than the disease you'd like to cure. And for companies, it is trivially easy to circumvent any sort of contract that binds a particular company, but not the general public. Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
