Re: Copyleft vs Permissive

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 11.01.2017 um 22:49 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

> Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I
> have another point of view :-D
> 
IMO there are a lot of points of view possible, when you are talking
about copyleft. And most of these are valid, if you don't say, that one
point is the only true point of view.

And one should never forget: Strong, weak or no copyleft may be an
interesting point, but most important is, that it is Free Software.

Kind regards
Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Copyleft vs Permissive

[Peter Kovacs]

On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote:

Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:


For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
anything that uses their licenses.

The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are
promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has
no copyleft.

But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because
nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the
permission of the copyright holder (programmer).
I do not think copyleft gives you more control. You omit your copy 
rights in favour of copy left.
Multi Licens policies are only possible if your developer team agrees on 
this model right from the start.
If you try to build one afterwards, I would expect at least 
difficulties, or even risks if your documentation on contributors is to 
sloppy.

That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these
licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft.

That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code.

For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom.
Endusers do not care about license policy in general. See the closed 
source drivers in the Kernel. There was somewhat pressure to resolve it, 
but a lot of pressure not to sentence it.
Also you can see in our Community that the Apache License is not a major 
topic to them. Functionality is the major point. I think it is even less 
important for users which license a software has then data security.

If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much
easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more
control, what people do with your product.
I think the license model is much tied to your business modell. If you 
are able to build services around code, the protection of the copy left, 
makes you more secure on the market. Since no one can break out.
If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the 
Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
I do not believe that a lot of people understand this. There is this 
Idea floating around copy left == communism, which I think is not true. 
It depends on the organisation of the community.

Kind regards
Michael
Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I 
have another point of view :-D


All the best
Peter

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Dave]

On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
> 
> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.

The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/

In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
under the same license.

Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.

In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.

Please let's not try to rewrite history.

-- 
Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
never be read.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Max Merbald]

Hello,


anything is possible if you want it. And if you really want it, a merger 
with LO is also possible.


The problem is that AOO is way behind. Even if you don't want to hear 
it: Too little has happened over the last several years. Ages ago we 
discussed what to do about version 5.0 - nothing about it has happened 
so far. LO has overtaken us by far. Sometime ago we discussed what to do 
about version 4.2 - and now we seem to be discussing version 4.1.4. That 
would only be a very minor step.


And no, you don't say EOD because the merger is, allegedly, not 
possible. You say EOD because it hurts you to acknowledge the 
shortcomings of the work on AOO and you want to put that behind you and 
to ltrundle on in the old slow speed.


And, @ Jörg, you might want to be more careful about the choice of your 
words. Just because someone says something you don't want to hear what 
they say is not necessarily bad propaganda or an attack. The way you 
react reminds me of Trump's tweets to criticism. And it is not the way 
to conduct an orderly discussion.


Max



Am 11.01.2017 um 11:45 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 11.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb RA Stehmann:

Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos:

The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
Each developer own our part from code.

And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the
OOo code, and close it.


So a merge with the ASF as suggested by Suhail Ansari is not possible.
That is a good reason for EOD.

Regards
Michael

+1

Regards, Matthias




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 11.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb RA Stehmann:
> Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos:
>> The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
>> Each developer own our part from code.
>>
>> And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
>> licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
>> with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the
>> OOo code, and close it.
>>
> So a merge with the ASF as suggested by Suhail Ansari is not possible.
> That is a good reason for EOD.
>
> Regards
> Michael
+1

Regards, Matthias



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[RA Stehmann]

Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos:
> The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
> Each developer own our part from code.
> 
> And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
> licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
> with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the
> OOo code, and close it.
> 

So a merge with the ASF as suggested by Suhail Ansari is not possible.
That is a good reason for EOD.

Regards
Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Nagy Ákos]

The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
Each developer own our part from code.

And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the
OOo code, and close it.

2017. 01. 11. 11:55 keltezéssel, FR web forum írta:
> TDF could be give up these copyleft licences.
> Maybe, we could create a petition to ask this
> LibO, please bring back to AL v2 licence
>  :-)
>
> - Mail original -
> De: "Patricia Shanahan" 
> À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Janvier 2017 09:44:26
> Objet: Re: future of OpenOffice
>
> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier 
> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have 
> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
>
> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was 
> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should 
> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does 
> not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to 
> anything that uses their licenses.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
> not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
> anything that uses their licenses.

The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are
promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has
no copyleft.

But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because
nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the
permission of the copyright holder (programmer).

That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these
licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft.

That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code.

For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom.

If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much
easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more
control, what people do with your product.

Kind regards
Michael










signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[FR web forum]

TDF could be give up these copyleft licences.
Maybe, we could create a petition to ask this
LibO, please bring back to AL v2 licence
 :-)

- Mail original -
De: "Patricia Shanahan" 
À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Janvier 2017 09:44:26
Objet: Re: future of OpenOffice

On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> merged in OpenOffice.

That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier 
to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have 
kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.

For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was 
writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should 
have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does 
not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to 
anything that uses their licenses.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Google+] YouTube channel tutorial request

[Matthias Seidel]

BTW: I updated the "channel art" at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5VAaY4mqQVhNe8j7fZCEfw

Regards, Matthias


Am 04.01.2017 um 18:15 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Hello youtubers,
>
> If you look for tutorial topics I have a suggestion.
> How to copy stuff in Open Office. All the options. What happens if you
> copy a Picture from the internet directly and How you save your
> picture in the document itself.
> I think this might confuse people, and it may lead to a coding issue
> where the application hangs when complex documents are copy pasted.
>
> Please check following forum thread for Ideas (same thread, 2
> resolution posts):
> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7=75424#p342483
> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7=75424#p342562
>
> I think best would be to show a complex document.
> Maybe also have a word on copyright and propper Quoting.
>
> I guess this may be a valued topic.
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Jörg Schmidt]

The problem is another, you are trying to sow uncertainty here.

This is a method I only know of LO / TDF sympatizers and only against 
OpenOffice.
Never have I experienced the LO / TDF sympatizers attacking other Office 
projects.

Likewise, I have not experienced the OO sympathizers try the same on LO
mailing-lists.


Jörg
 

> -Original Message-
> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:a...@romkat.ro] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 9:30 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: future of OpenOffice
> 
> I wrote something that is not true?
> About the trends:
> https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice
> 
> Finantial report:
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/7/7e/TDFAnnualRepor
> t2015LR.pdf
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/990-2014.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 2017. 01. 11. 10:21 keltezéssel, Jörg Schmidt írta:
> >> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:a...@romkat.ro] 
> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> >> merged in OpenOffice.
> >> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, 
> >> more exactly
> >> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because 
> >> the OO code
> >> is outdated compared with LO code.
> >> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice
> > No. You spread only bad propaganda.
> >
> > Do you really think we are so stupid not to remember that 
> you have changed your
> > address from nagy.a...@libreoffice.ro (on 26.09.2016 on 
> this list here) to
> > a...@romkat.ro (today)?
> >
> >
> > What you try here is typical FUD.
> >
> >
> > Jörg
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Nagy Ákos]

2017. 01. 11. 10:26 keltezéssel, Raphael Bircher írta:
> Hi Akos
>
> Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
> As whole package yes, but you can ask individual contributors to put
> there code to Apache License 2.0.
We talk about more then 1500 individual contributors.
>
>> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, more exactly
>> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because the OO code
>> is outdated compared with LO code.
> How you know, the AOO Code is outdated? We maintain the code, as LO
> maintain there code. Please come with facts.
Sorry, maybe not the outdated expression is a good expression but
someting similar.
AOO has 13598 commits from 2011 (including webpage changes) and LO has
aprox 10 commits in same time.
I know that only the commit number not equal with the code quality, but
represent progress in code quality too.
https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice/commits/summary
https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice/commits/summary
>
>> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice, and some
>> other facts: LibreOffice have few hundred new features that OO don't
>> have, LibreOffice have a cloud suit (LibreOffice Online) etc.
>> You can compare the development trends:
>
> Libre Office is maybe popular at the Linux world, and even there exist
> Users who kick LO and install OpenOffice. There are big features in LO
> who simply shipped over to LO. Native SVG Import. Mac OS X 64 Bit
> port, and the Sidebar for exemple. Many of the added Features are
> simply buddled Extensions.
>
> More feature dosen't mean a better product. If you add a load of new
> bugs to the software in the same time, the user will not be happy.
You are right, if the new features means only new bugs. But some
features is necessary for daily work. And many features is very useful
and for many people is required:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/3.4
...
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/5.3
>
>> https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice (include webpage and wiki)
>> https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice (only application code)
>>
>> Based on financial reports, TDF has income equal to Apache Foundation,
>> and TDF spend all money to LibreOffice, but Apache only a little part
>> from their income spend for OO.
> Apache spend more or less only the infrastructure. TDF and ASF are not
> comparebel. ASF does not found individual projects at all. Not even
> the ApacheCon is founded over ASF budget.
>
> Regards, Raphael
>
>
>>
>> 2017. 01. 10. 20:43 keltezéssel, suhail ansari írta:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>   My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice
>>> community.
>>>
>>> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of
>>> downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should
>>> talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their
>>> foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's
>>> biggest open source software foundation and if the document
>>> foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice).
>>> The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop,
>>> tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the
>>> document foundation to work together.
>>>
>>>
>>> Suhail Ansari
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] 

> Hello,
> 
> this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend 
> tasks yet.
> 
> If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find 
> us. And vice
> versa.
> 
> We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any
> topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again.
> 
> If LO people want to support AOO, they know how. If the want to
> collaborate, they know to whom they should talk to.
> 
> Our invitations to put code also under the Apache Licence (v2), to
> collaborate in marketing and documentation etc. are still valid.
> 
> IMO it makes sense to continue both projects, AOO and LO.


Thank you for this very clear statement.


Greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Homepage] ApacheCon graphic/link in footer.html

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Marcus,

"technical problem" does not sound good...

I enabled the box now (or better late last night... ;-) )
I think may, 16-18 is right although apachecon.com mentions 15-19.

Regards, Matthias

Am 10.01.2017 um 22:30 schrieb Marcus:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:04:29 +0100, Matthias Seidel
>  wrote:
>> I planned to post a link to ApacheCon on Google+ together with your
>> "special box".
>> Now, almost 3 weeks later I posted it anyway...
>>
>> Can I help you to get this on the website?
> due to a technical problem I'm not able to do any changes at the moment.
> So, if you have a graphic and text available, you can exchange the data in
> "msg_prop_l10n.js". It's the "l10n.index_event_box_..." variables. Finally,
> don't forget to enable the event box with "l10n.index_event_box_show".
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>> Am 21.12.2016 um 19:34 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 12/21/2016 03:45 PM, schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 I have found an older version of footer.html.
 In 2014 there was a graphic/link to "ApacheCon Europe" on the left
> side
 of the footer:

   

 I would like to re-introduce that with the current graphic/link for
 "ApacheCon North America".
 The footer would look more "balanced" again and it shows our
> integration
 in the ASF.
>>> after that a lot has happened to the homepage. We now have a special
>>> box to announce events like the ApacheCon on the top. Maybe you
>>> haven't seen the previous one for November.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, when you put such eye-catcher int othe footer then IMHO
>>> you are wasting your time as the footer is not always visible (e.g.,
>>> maybe the user has to scroll to see everything).
>>>
 If no-one objects within three days, I'll assume lazy consensus and
> will
 begin with the work after Christmas. ;-)
>>> Sorry, yes. ;-)
>>>
>>> In this case I'm already working on a new graphic + text for the new
> box.
>>> Marcus
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote:

Hi,

it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
merged in OpenOffice.


That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier 
to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have 
kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.


For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was 
writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should 
have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does 
not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to 
anything that uses their licenses.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Hello,

this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet.

If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice
versa.

We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any
topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again.

If LO people want to support AOO, they know how. If the want to
collaborate, they know to whom they should talk to.

Our invitations to put code also under the Apache Licence (v2), to
collaborate in marketing and documentation etc. are still valid.

IMO it makes sense to continue both projects, AOO and LO.

Kind regards
Michael


.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Matthias Seidel]

The only way to stop this kind of discussion is to concentrate on the
release of OpenOffice 4.1.4.

We have enough code, we have enough translations. So let's move on! ;-)

Kind regards, Matthias Seidel


Am 11.01.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>> From: suhail ansari [mailto:iamsuhailans...@outlook.com] 
>>   My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for 
>> OpenOffice community.
>>
>> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of 
>> downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation 
>> should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge 
>> their foundation with Apache software foundation because 
> -1
>
> The original does not have to speak with the fork. 
> I will never forget how often LO members of OO have spoken badly.
>
>> Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and 
>> if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one 
>> product (OpenOffice).
> -1
>
> I am only a committer, but I will never agree. If the TDF join the ASF I will
> leave the ASF.
>
>> It 
>> will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work 
>> together.
> But not good for the quality of the product OpenOffice. We can see at LO 
> every day
> what is the hurried development for the quality.
>
>
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Nagy Ákos]

I wrote something that is not true?
About the trends:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice

Finantial report:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/7/7e/TDFAnnualReport2015LR.pdf
https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/990-2014.pdf



2017. 01. 11. 10:21 keltezéssel, Jörg Schmidt írta:
>> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:a...@romkat.ro] 
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
>> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, 
>> more exactly
>> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because 
>> the OO code
>> is outdated compared with LO code.
>> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice
> No. You spread only bad propaganda.
>
> Do you really think we are so stupid not to remember that you have changed 
> your
> address from nagy.a...@libreoffice.ro (on 26.09.2016 on this list here) to
> a...@romkat.ro (today)?
>
>
> What you try here is typical FUD.
>
>
> Jörg
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Raphael Bircher]

Hi Akos

Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos :


Hi,

it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
merged in OpenOffice.
As whole package yes, but you can ask individual contributors to put there  
code to Apache License 2.0.



The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, more exactly
the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because the OO code
is outdated compared with LO code.
How you know, the AOO Code is outdated? We maintain the code, as LO  
maintain there code. Please come with facts.



The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice, and some
other facts: LibreOffice have few hundred new features that OO don't
have, LibreOffice have a cloud suit (LibreOffice Online) etc.
You can compare the development trends:


Libre Office is maybe popular at the Linux world, and even there exist  
Users who kick LO and install OpenOffice. There are big features in LO who  
simply shipped over to LO. Native SVG Import. Mac OS X 64 Bit port, and  
the Sidebar for exemple. Many of the added Features are simply buddled  
Extensions.


More feature dosen't mean a better product. If you add a load of new bugs  
to the software in the same time, the user will not be happy.



https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice (include webpage and wiki)
https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice (only application code)

Based on financial reports, TDF has income equal to Apache Foundation,
and TDF spend all money to LibreOffice, but Apache only a little part
from their income spend for OO.
Apache spend more or less only the infrastructure. TDF and ASF are not  
comparebel. ASF does not found individual projects at all. Not even the  
ApacheCon is founded over ASF budget.


Regards, Raphael




2017. 01. 10. 20:43 keltezéssel, suhail ansari írta:

Hi,

  My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice  
community.


OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads.  
My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the  
document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache  
software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source  
software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we  
can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source  
software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good  
for both ASF and the document foundation to work together.



Suhail Ansari






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org




--
Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org