On 01/29/2015 10:19 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I didn't even know about this page, > <http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>, until I saw an > update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and > didn't think much about it. > > Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I > agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the > perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in > use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more > straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is > within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out > how over-reaching this page is. > > The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as > an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized > interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various > kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should > have alerted me farther. > > I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't > recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in > that period.
It does seem that this page would be applicable to ALL of the ASF, so in that sense it is not specific to OpenOffice, but I don't see it as harmful. IMO, there are some parts of the first section that could be removed without damaging the flow into the second section. And maybe a bit of rewording to the second section. But on balance, I think it does serve a useful purpose, whether it directly pertains to OpenOffice or not. > > SUGGESTION > > 1. Remove the page altogether. > > 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already > adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice > binaries that the project makes available. > > 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and > that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the > binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about > that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from > time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not > already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this > could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the > broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am > making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the > orientation.) This is covered in our distribution page...http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/ Should that be linked from the page in question. > > 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the > source code is always available from the Project. That source code > is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's > own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source > licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a > why_develop page. > > 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions > of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be > mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any > deep-dive details from there. > > This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an > open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not > ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the > circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing > models. Well, OK, maybe we need a better "umbrellla" page to cover some of these concerns in some way. > > Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide > no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of > AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims > of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the > Disclaimer in the License? ??? not sure what you think is needed in this respect. These situations arise on a regular basis by the way. We've tried to cover some of this in the distribution page and in our download page...but maybe both of these areas need more visibility. > > -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org > +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A > X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail > > PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be > addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's > war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most > of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of > relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, > whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the > distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. > Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing > open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the > carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that > has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary > of open-source goodness. > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "An old horse for a long, hard road, a young pony for a quick ride." -- Texas Bix Bender --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
