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 perspe
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
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 o
"Noel J. Bergman" wrote on 06/07/2011 03:49:12 PM:
> From: "Noel J. Bergman"
> To:
> 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 t
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 d
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Noel J. Bergman 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
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
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman 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-ba
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
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman
> wrote:
> >
> >> Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>
> >> > unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do
> extremely
> >> > substanti
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman 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
>> >
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman 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
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
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >> LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amoun
On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski 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.
>>
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik 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 celeb
On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer 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?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski 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, e
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.
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
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Ralph Goers 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
---
> 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.f
p://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 wrote:
<http://mail-archives.a
l.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
--
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Ralph Goers 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 confu
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 pos
On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby 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
On 6/5/2011 6:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer 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 use
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby 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 softw
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein 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 mus
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein 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 o
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read
>>> the license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher 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 to
n 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:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher 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-F
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility
>>
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 r
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 r
f
any benefit to anyone, so lets just drop it.
- Original Message
> From: Keith Curtis
> 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 yo
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher 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.
>
>
> 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 w
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ralph Goers
> 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 ow
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ralph Goers 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
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher 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, th
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,
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald 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://projec
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer 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 r
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer 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, bu
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald 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
- Original Message
> From: Keith Curtis
> 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 wrote:
> >
> > We only benefit if the code is con
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer 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 d
> -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
> wrote:
> > You
- Original Message
> From: Keith Curtis
> 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 wrote:
> > Look, for reasons that won't ever
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer 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
> t
e 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.
- Original Message
> From: Keith Curtis
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 5
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer 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
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
> Keith Curtis 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 f
m: Keith Curtis
> 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 wrote:
> > This isn't helpful Bill IMO. Lotsa people have acculturated
> > to the F
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Joe Schaefer 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 turn
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
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 f
On 5 June 2011 18:47, William A. Rowe Jr. 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 pre
Keith Curtis 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
essage
> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
> 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
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 propr
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 a
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 4:30
> 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 pro
66 matches
Mail list logo
