Thanks Aravind for summarising all we have been saying in the past few days :-)
All you stated was written or implicit in our communication: https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2020/07/06/board-statement-on-the-libreoffice-7-0rc-personal-edition-label/ Linking here some of my answers which should further clarify things: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04632.html https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04623.html https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04604.html Ciao Paolo On 09/07/2020 18:35, Aravind Palla wrote: > I think a clear-cut statement from the Board can answer a lot of questions > and reduce a lot of negativity. > > The Board should clarify: > - that there will be no change of license; > - that there will be no 'exclusive' features for the proposed enterprise > edition other than dedicated support like priority bug-fixing, help, etc.; > - that there will be no terminology/tags that might demotivate the > non-individuals (be it small communities/NGOs/governments/ big enterprises) > to use the LibreOffice Community Edition (I believe that the board will not > chose the Personal Edition name). The recent inclusions in the development > branch like 'Personal Edition' and the tag 'intended for individual use' > surely demotivates the non-individuals to use the software; > - that the LibreOffice Community Edition will function as effectively as the > proposed LibreOffice Enterprise Edition without any restrictions; > - that the intention of the board is not to commercialize the office suite > which creates commotion among the great community that has been supporting > LibreOffice since years; > - that the board respects the principles of freedom (libre) software. > > A statement clarifying the above may help answering a lot of community > members. > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Thursday, July 9, 2020 9:18 PM, Michael Meeks > <michael.me...@collabora.com> wrote: > >> Hi Alex, >> >> On 06/07/2020 10:27, Alexander Werner wrote in bugzilla at >> >>> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486#c23 >>> Cleary, The Document Foundation must release a version that is open >>> to all intended audiences. As clearly stated in the statues, the >>> intended audience is: everyone, explicitly including COMPANIES and >>> PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. >> Some comments on that; the statutes are public here: >> https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/statutes/ >> >>> I quote from the preamble: >>> "The objective of the foundation is the promotion and >>> development of office software available for use by anyone >>> free of charge." >> A tag and about box text doesn't modify any of this. The >> fundamental license and availability for use by anyone free of charge >> stays. >> >> Clearly that is so. Beyond tweaking the brand with a tag - no >> change is suggested to the software or its distribution at all. >> >> Moving on let me include the omitted second paragraph: >> >> "The foundation promotes a sustainable, independent and >> meritocratic community for the international development of >> free and open source software based on open standards." >> >> These mission goals are not optional. We need to be >> sustainable - How large a community do you think it is necessary to >> have to sustain the software ? how do we promote that ? >> >>> The issue gets even clearer: >>> "This software will be openly available for free use by anyone for >>> their own files, including companies and public authorities, >>> ensuring full participation in a digital society and without >>> detriment to intellectual property." >> So - LibreOffice Personal -as-now- will be openly available >> for free use by anyone; so that is also clearly met. >> >> - Some background on the history & philosophical context here: >> >> - Free Software has for decades been fighting against the >> idea that it is free-as-in-beer, and talking of >> free-as-in-freedom. >> >> - RMS regularly distinguishes Libre from Gratis, and talks >> about the vital freedoms. Arguably the Open Source movement >> itself is a reaction against this "free of price" frame. >> >> - if we take an extreme view of this paragraph in our statutes >> that would lead me to the conclusion that we are mis-named: >> we should be called "GratisOffice" - if freedom from price >> is the core purpose of the project. Perhaps we're overdue >> for a re-brand: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre >> >> if our core purpose is Gratis; it's just horribly >> confusing to call ourselves Libre. >> >> - Many commnity members I've spoken to have little sympathy >> for enterprises that just take, and contribute nothing >> back except bug reports & associated aggravation. >> >> - They have even less sympathy for those who charge for using >> our brand and software in the enterprise, and then >> contribute nothing back. >> >> - By focusing here, it -can- sound as if you arguing that >> our core purpose is to give free stuff to large, rich >> enterprises ? that we should sweat and toil for free, >> for the good of IBM, or Oracle, or ... =) surely not. >> >> - for me that's not a motivating factor whatsoever, I want >> to collaborate with other contributors to promote and >> develop an office suite available for use by anyone >> free of charge; in a sustainable way. >> >> LibreOffice Personal/Community could be how we promote that. >> >> But really, how it is marketed, what tags go on the splash >> screen - how we try to -effectively- (we're good at doing this >> ineffectively ;-) steer people towards even starting to understand >> that they need to contribute, whether directly themselves or via the >> ecosystem - these all seem to be tactical issues. >> >> We know that existing attempts to do that are an utter >> failure, with zero up-take. We know that enterprises (charitably) >> don't even know that they should do the right thing here. >> >> We know that changing here might be disruptive, but having >> some suggestions of what changes might be acceptable and some idea of >> what success might look like would be really helpful. What do you >> think TDF should concretely do to solve the problems I outline: >> >> >> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04591.html >> >> We know that enterprises don't donate and that the vast >> majority don't contribute, so it is individual persons via donations, >> or via awesome contributions =) alongside the ecosystem who end up >> funding what work goes on the project. >> >> I think Bjoern states that rather well here[1]: >> >> "IMHO, the same applies even stronger to @tdforg as an NGO: I >> dont think other institutions -- especially commercial ones >> that are not contributing to its projects -- have any moral >> rights to its output." >> >> But, of course - perhaps there is another way that TDF as an >> NGO can deliver its mission, stay true to its purpose, improve the >> software, and create the big, grateful, fun community I keep banging >> on about as a vision =) >> >> I'd really like to hear ideas there. Say we use a different, >> or no tag for example - how do we get the message across to >> enterprises effectively that they need to contribute ? either tons of >> code themselves, or more realistically funding to the ecosystem ? how >> does that differ from today ? and why do we think it will work ? we >> can always try new things of course. >> >> Thanks ! >> >> Michael. >> >> [1] - >> https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=1280753358605881352&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fthreadreaderapp.com%2Fthread%2F1280753358605881352.html >> -- >> michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity >> >> >> Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks >> (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org >> Problems? >> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ >> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy > > -- Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
