Am 01/30/2015 01:32 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
On 29/01/15 19:19, 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.
I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some
interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open
source software and the different open source licenses.
It can be seen as background information.
In the context of the "why" page it is dos no harm and just provides
some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse
reading.
If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of
other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people
don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here.
We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I
hope we can and will concentrate on these important things.
+1
AFAIK only one person has mentioned this and only indirectly by useing
some words as quote. Since when is this webpage online? SVN tells us Dev
2012. But I haven't looked since when which text parts are online. Now
we have one feedback of just a little part of the webpage.
It's just another try to go for a fight of license variantes.
Keep the text as it is, remove typos or adjust the wording if someone
get offended personally. But I don't see the need to change the text
because someone don't like it. Or remove the webpage entirely which
would in IMHO b*shit.
My 2 ct.
Marcus
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.)
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.
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?
-- 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
