Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Am 03/01/2015 01:31 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 23/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: This is the proposed new version of http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html I've put the page online. It incorporates the suggestions made in this thread. The only significant changes are in the For Developers section, that I copy/paste below for review (even if it is online, we can of course change it at any time). thanks a lot for your text. I hope that this topic is now finsihed with this. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
+1 Yes, that is pretty clean, especially with regard to the tone. -Original Message- From: marcus [mailto:mar...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 14:10 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs Am 03/01/2015 01:31 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 23/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: This is the proposed new version of http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html I've put the page online. It incorporates the suggestions made in this thread. The only significant changes are in the For Developers section, that I copy/paste below for review (even if it is online, we can of course change it at any time). thanks a lot for your text. I hope that this topic is now finsihed with this. Marcus - 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: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 26/02/15 18:34, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: The edge case is that happening where the settlement exceeds $10 million USD. We're not talking innocent violation of license terms here, we're talking about willful violations, so I am in some ways unsympathetic. I don't know what current settlements are. Back when I paid attention to them US$10^8 could have been the penalty for an innocent violation. The company that had one computer, with one employee authorized to use it, being nailed because they had 5,000 employes, and thus, by SBA criteria, needed to have 5,000 licenses for everything. That 4,999 employees neither need, want, desire, or even can use a computer to carry out their job, was utterly irrelevant to the SBA. That the paperwork for that single computer, and all of the software on it, was otherwise in full compliance, was equally irrelevant to the SBA. I do know of a firm that bought their hardware, and software, in good faith, from a fairly well known local dealer. Unfortunately for them, nothing that the dealer sold them, was legitimate, as far as the SBA was concerned. Not a US$10^8 penalty, but certainly an innocent error -- the error being to rely on the material representation of the local dealer, that their software was kosher. Going by what was displayed on the startup screen of the Dell Laptop I purchased new, the OEM installed version of Windows was not a legitimate version of Windows 7. Would my use be innocent infringement? After all, I purchased it from the largest retailer of electronic goods in North America. A company that claims quality, value, and service as its core values. jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Friday, February 27, 2015, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 25/02/2015 jonathon wrote: On 23/02/15 17:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: I have to state it again: this is not the way I would have written the page; it is a version of the page that preserves all terms we had on that page. If we agree on another version I'm very happy. Is there a need/requirement to preserve all the terms on the page? An argument that was made during other discussions on this topic was that the page had been designed to intercept web searches by people that did not even know about OpenOffice. Now, I can understand that people who search information about BSA audits will be relieved to discover OpenOffice and the fact that it poses no compliance problems. I doubt that mentions of the FSF and SFLC can be justified by the same reasons (the audience in that case is radically different) so I have nothing against rewriting this part avoiding to name specific entities and licenses (other than the ASF and Apache License, of course). +1 let us get this behind us. Having the page can have a purpose, and the way you suggest to rewrite it does no harm. rgds jan i Jim: I've CCed you now, but if you want to be kept updated please follow the conversation at http://markmail.org/message/j4benlcq5niden26 Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Thanks for the analysis Jonathon, 1. The edge case I was thinking of was being able to obtain a bounty of up to $1 million USD. It is actually a formula based on the amount obtained in a settlement that is obtained *without* litigation. The edge case is that happening where the settlement exceeds $10 million USD. We're not talking innocent violation of license terms here, we're talking about willful violations, so I am in some ways unsympathetic. (And I don't think anyone being so willful is interested in this web page, since if they were completely willing to abandon whatever pirated goodies they are clinging to I think it would have happened, considering the level of exposure.) 2. There is an interesting situation with the FSF case, as I recall. The FSF only has standing to litigate in those cases where they have obtained the equivalent of CLAs from contributors. The achievement of the suit that I remember the most about was it having demonstrated that the GPL is indeed enforceable in courts. It's true, of course, that it would be smarter to find permissively-licensed code to use instead, not only ALv2 as an alternative. Of course that's why some FLOSS adherents consider permissive licenses to be corrupt. - Dennis -Original Message- From: jonathon [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 03:54 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] ### Addressing various issues mentioned in other emails. The page under discussion identifies some worst-case situations that are not representative of what happens, FWIW, as far as SBA compliance is concerned, it does not cover worst case scenarios, but rather, average to _best_ case scenarios. (IOW, if anything, it understates what happens, if the SBA targets your business. Also, contrary to SBA claims, they individuals are also targetted.) As far as FSF compliance is concerned, their formal policy is to work with organizations, and _not_ go to court. Even in court, they are willing to settle at any point during the trial, up to, and including seconds before the judge issues the official verdict.(IOW, if you are in court for a GPL violation filed by FSF, it is either because your attorney is incredibly incompetent, or you are incredibly stubborn.) In both instances, there won't be much, if anything, in the court records. The SBA takes, without going to court, and the FSF simply insists on making changes in the organization's operations, so that it fully complies with _all_ software licenses, not just the FLOSS licenses. What one can find, is FSF and SBA press releases, that describe what happens when they do find violations. I submit that a software producer could distribute binaries under per-seat licenses that were based on software completely under a permissive license and dispute violations of the terms under which those binaries were made available to a customer. Whether or not said producer gets anywhere legally, depends upon the specific license of the binary: * With GNU GPL 2.0, odds are the producer qua plaintiff, gets to pay defendant's court costs; * With BSD, odds are the defendant loses the lawsuit, because they did violate the license; There were a few firms that distributed OOo under a per seat license. They all appear to be out of business. There were, and are some firms that provide LibO AOo support, on a per seat basis. They appear to have an informal policy of allowing a percentage of understatement of seats, whilst providing full support for all seats. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 23/02/15 15:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: so it is odd to have a revision in hand while we are still deliberating on what direction to take. The discussion popped up about three weeks ago, with Andrea volunteering to rewrite the page, but saying he needed the weekend to do so. It took him longer than a weekend to consider what, and how it could be changed, to include what was on that page, but project The Apache Way. 1. The OpenOffice Mission The specific page was a very subtle put-down of LibO, EO, NO, KOo, and three or four other office suites that had their roots in StarOffice. It does a raise a valid point, in that the different licenses do have different criteria for compliance, and the resulting cost of compliance. 2. The Purpose of the Page There were half a dozen or so CYA pages from when Sun and Oracle ran OOo. (I've forgotten their names. I've seen at least one on the AOo site.) This is one of those CYA pages, most useful when lawyers want to sue someone, because their client didn't understand something, and wants somebody else to pay for their self-inflicted damage. I don't know if this specific page was a rewrite of a specific page from when either Sun or Oracle ran OOo, or if it was written after The Apache Foundation acquired OOo. Some of the wording implies that it was created specifically for AOo. Some of the wording is in SUN's house style, when dealing with awkward topics. If the page does not mention other licenses, then it can be advocacy page, explaining why Apache 2.0, and consequently AOo is an appropriate choice for an organization to use. Apache OpenOffice is not a pure ALv2 release. * Which is just one of the reasons why compliance costs are not going to be zero, when using AOo. ### Addressing various issues mentioned in other emails. The page under discussion identifies some worst-case situations that are not representative of what happens, FWIW, as far as SBA compliance is concerned, it does not cover worst case scenarios, but rather, average to _best_ case scenarios. (IOW, if anything, it understates what happens, if the SBA targets your business. Also, contrary to SBA claims, they individuals are also targetted.) As far as FSF compliance is concerned, their formal policy is to work with organizations, and _not_ go to court. Even in court, they are willing to settle at any point during the trial, up to, and including seconds before the judge issues the official verdict.(IOW, if you are in court for a GPL violation filed by FSF, it is either because your attorney is incredibly incompetent, or you are incredibly stubborn.) In both instances, there won't be much, if anything, in the court records. The SBA takes, without going to court, and the FSF simply insists on making changes in the organization's operations, so that it fully complies with _all_ software licenses, not just the FLOSS licenses. What one can find, is FSF and SBA press releases, that describe what happens when they do find violations. I submit that a software producer could distribute binaries under per-seat licenses that were based on software completely under a permissive license and dispute violations of the terms under which those binaries were made available to a customer. Whether or not said producer gets anywhere legally, depends upon the specific license of the binary: * With GNU GPL 2.0, odds are the producer qua plaintiff, gets to pay defendant's court costs; * With BSD, odds are the defendant loses the lawsuit, because they did violate the license; There were a few firms that distributed OOo under a per seat license. They all appear to be out of business. There were, and are some firms that provide LibO AOo support, on a per seat basis. They appear to have an informal policy of allowing a percentage of understatement of seats, whilst providing full support for all seats. jonathon * English - detected * English * English javascript:void(0); signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 25/02/2015 jonathon wrote: On 23/02/15 17:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: I have to state it again: this is not the way I would have written the page; it is a version of the page that preserves all terms we had on that page. If we agree on another version I'm very happy. Is there a need/requirement to preserve all the terms on the page? An argument that was made during other discussions on this topic was that the page had been designed to intercept web searches by people that did not even know about OpenOffice. Now, I can understand that people who search information about BSA audits will be relieved to discover OpenOffice and the fact that it poses no compliance problems. I doubt that mentions of the FSF and SFLC can be justified by the same reasons (the audience in that case is radically different) so I have nothing against rewriting this part avoiding to name specific entities and licenses (other than the ASF and Apache License, of course). Jim: I've CCed you now, but if you want to be kept updated please follow the conversation at http://markmail.org/message/j4benlcq5niden26 Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
I see there is some wordsmithing discussion going on concerning the draft from Andreas. I confess that it is difficult for me to contribute to that considering that I find the entire activity one that requires a more global perspective. Here are a few observations. I am afraid I have nothing useful to contribute beyond this. 1. THE ROLE OF THE ASF Nowhere in this account is there any recognition of the part that the ASF has in what users of releases from Apache Projects can rely on with regard to the provenance of the code and the applicable license(s). In particular, it is very important how the ASF operates in good faith in relying on declarations that contributors make about having the right to make their contributions. 2. SBA AND FSF DISPUTES AND LITIGATION The information about SBA activities, and FSF activities, is not supported by useful information about what specific disputes were and how settlements were obtained without litigation in most cases. The page under discussion identifies some worst-case situations that are not representative of what happens, and does not indicate any specifics about when the reported disputes occurred and how someone could find details of them (including what the actual bounty offer is from SBA and where in the world all this applies). I submit that a software producer could distribute binaries under per-seat licenses that were based on software completely under a permissive license and dispute violations of the terms under which those binaries were made available to a customer. While that may be far-fetched, there is nothing about the licenses that makes it so. 3. THE SMALL MATTER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS I already suggested that anyone who wants to make a derivative of the AOO release has to contend with all of the license that apply to that code (not just ALv2) and be satisfied concerning the safety of their so doing. That is especially the case for a commercial actor having the kind of assets that would have them be vulnerable to a dispute over license conditions. Nowhere is it mentioned about how patents are dealt with in ALv2 and that there still remains the fact that patents not held by contributors can still be infringed by the code or by the employment of the software in processes that constitute infringements of patents held by third parties. Any commercial actor has to be attentive to this matter regardless of the form of open-source license that applies to the software itself. We already know about trademarks and how that can be a factor in what someone can do with the derivative or a distribution that they produce. I submit that commercial actors, especially, will arrange to understand what they need to do to ensure compliance in their activities, and such parties are not going to rely on that web page in such matters. And just today there was a request on the users@ oo.a.o list asking for reassurance that redistribution of AOO within an organization was acceptable. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 07:55 To: 'dev@openoffice.apache.org' Cc: 'Jim Jagielski' Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs Please note that I have also included Jim Jagielski in this reply, although he has reported that he does not follow dev@ here. I suspect continuing to do this is an intrusion on him, yet providing a BCC or separate forward seems inappropriate as well. orcmid Jim has since asked to be copied on continuing discussion on this topic. /orcmid I have not seen a [Vote][Result] on the currently-open vote on what to do about this page, so it is odd to have a revision in hand while we are still deliberating on what direction to take. That may be an e-mail glitch on my part. orcmid The vote result has now been announced and a majority of the ballots cast favored retention of the web page with modifications and clarifications. /orcmid [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Thx for the discussion and the work. It is greatly appreciated. With that said, I still don't see the need or rationale for the ##For Developers section. Removing the last 2 paragraphs would go a long way in keeping the narrative closer to the kind of discussion and info that the ASF is known for. PS: Please be sure to cc me on any follow-ups/replies - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Sounds good. Thanks for your work. I don't know if the last 1-2 paragraphs are still not Apache-friendly enough. Maybe it's better to avoid to state explicitely the anmes (and abbreviations). Of course, here others can judge better. ;-) Marcus Am 02/23/2015 01:15 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 02/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: I'll propose a rewrite And here we are. It is not the way I would have written it, but it seems a reasonable way to fulfill what I believe to be part of the OpenOffice mission (whatever people think): educating users to basic concepts about free, open source software and licenses. This is the proposed new version of http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html meant to will preserve SEO value and informative value, but (hopefully) in a more neutral tone. Wordings and minor mistakes can always be improved; what I'd like to know is if this version can be OK in general. We won't necessarily end with an agreement of course, but it still believe it's worth a try, since we can't give up part of the de-facto OpenOffice mission. --- [...] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 23/02/15 17:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: I have to state it again: this is not the way I would have written the page; it is a version of the page that preserves all terms we had on that page. If we agree on another version I'm very happy. Is there a need/requirement to preserve all the terms on the page? I like this, possibly with some minor rewording I was throwing up what I saw as the important points of that paragraphed, rephrased in a license neutral way. in order to keep the angle on compliance and compliance costs? Even when everything in LICENSES is Apache 2.0, or PD, some compliance and its associated costs will be required. jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
2015-02-23 8:43 GMT+01:00 jan i j...@apache.org: On 23 February 2015 at 03:41, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23/02/15 00:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific actions by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and the Free Software Foundation (FSF): an ascertained violation due to inclusion of copyleft code in a proprietary product results in the obligation to make the entire product source code available to the public. The Apache License avoids this risk and the associated needs for more employee education and more internal audits. I'd suggest deleting that paragraph. For starters, the SFLC FSF are neither the only organizations to distribute software under the GNU GPL, nor the only organizations to file lawsuits based on GNU GPL violations. I second that. +1 I really like the rest of the documentation, me too, thanks Andrea to have found the time to do that! but the last paragraph is not needed. We have no business telling how other licenses work. Alternatively, rephrase it. Software distributed under The Apache License can be included in proprietary software, without the legal obligation of releasing the entire source code tree, to the users of the program. All that is required, is an attribution of the Apache Licensed source code. The Apache License reduces: * The need for employee education; * The frequency of internal audits; * The intensity of internal audits; That could also work, because it does not mention the other licenses. Agree. Roberto rgds jan i. jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU6pNbAAoJEKG7hs8nSMR7E8kQAIklccMeKesrd+RaNhjbx4Pu DPbEQM64aO6oWHQij7MEZZFONo9jd0PO9RSzh4puF+Kn3xmLMOkqgQJtUW+h9v5t Sc+I/43gangig4UwH1Mt3kcpR8ZyG/A8H5osw1vDmT/zj5BlX8AhJ8qSXC4YuzXD nyB7RrlRCZqpN3lI03/CibzP6KfN7Qd7aocdRT+p5AFO1T+4zvfmZATPz04YXHAZ X59aFtJkIon0toraWfFPFdNRjZdpcI3jekCxPRmGOHFoCTumyNlgCIc6u8JjfsR+ 3XFxVnO2gsdAN10TBg498itC2BQ1ZIQO/9R2ZrRGwbioMbo9TNCroz205TxmvoPx iMLfZU1YthbmrG1+KGFLSNMw5P7g5qPKVGrO+geNoLYXH9Ww4Mgl0uO/YGRVjDi/ n0hdUA61Rn4aEaalChmipMad8vitYZuZaiY/aR1RrcMJnmg5u3DCsrBNtTUnepYR Mk17JhyG9bS83Qm5DaRi5QQif1+fNZQtVGlzlme4FIACriSggyFxySw6Dkk71VmM C4e1+s6SnrBEyPWbvOZOdu/sHFOyg/XUzKgzX3y7bAW0vFlGPSdzXP6ldgWaX8nY Kfj6i6B5j4qQuzLs40pY6sxTLFdxm6vttuHxuQXffC4R1SSygDlE4C8mjYPE8T6q ZXZHAmpKcWXR14kYloo4 =MrUr -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Please note that I have also included Jim Jagielski in this reply, although he has reported that he does not follow dev@ here. I suspect continuing to do this is an intrusion on him, yet providing a BCC or separate forward seems inappropriate as well. I have not seen a [Vote][Result] on the currently-open vote on what to do about this page, so it is odd to have a revision in hand while we are still deliberating on what direction to take. That may be an e-mail glitch on my part. I want to point out two things only. 1. The OpenOffice Mission I gather that many believe there is an OpenOffice mission to educate users to basic concepts about free, open source software and licenses. I don't believe there is consensus on that matter, although there are clearly many in this community that find it a great thing to be doing. Either way, I would claim that this is not an appropriate mission for an Apache Project. We need to distinguish our personal preferences from what our (especially the PMC) obligations are with respect to how the ASF expects projects to further *its* mission for contributing open-source software in the public interest. I have said this before in one form and another and I will stop here other than to point out that we continue to resist advice from officials of the ASF that find the subject page objectionable. 2. The Purpose of the Page The page at issue is part of a section of the OpenOffice.org site named why/. It is clearly an advocacy section from the days of Sun and Oracle custody. The specific page has it appear that Apache OpenOffice can be cloaked in the flag of Apache License Version 2 goodness and rightness and it leaves adopters with pretty much complete permissive freedom for its binaries (nearly true) and its source code (not true at all). Apache OpenOffice is not a pure ALv2 release. * And that is not just because the presence (or absence) of category B software in the binary distributions is not explained. I fished out the NOTICE and LICENSE files from the current release as it is installed on Windows. (It is not in the obvious place. Look in the folder where the binaries are.) The NOTICE file is 185 lines in 6,025 bytes of plaintext. The LICENSE file is 4,174 lines in 212,394 bytes of plaintext. There are multiple copyright notices and more than 25 license statements (not counting repetitions of the same ones). While this might not matter to someone only using the binaries, it definitely matters to any commercial enterprise that considers mucking with a source release. Finally, concerning the need to build a working binary without dependencies on category B, etc., I notice we are currently dealing with crashers that arise when a JRE is not available. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 16:15 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs On 02/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: I'll propose a rewrite And here we are. It is not the way I would have written it, but it seems a reasonable way to fulfill what I believe to be part of the OpenOffice mission (whatever people think): educating users to basic concepts about free, open source software and licenses. This is the proposed new version of http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html meant to will preserve SEO value and informative value, but (hopefully) in a more neutral tone. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
jonathon wrote: On 23/02/15 00:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific actions by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and the Free Software Foundation (FSF): an ascertained violation due to inclusion of copyleft code in a proprietary product results in the obligation to make the entire product source code available to the public. The Apache License avoids this risk and the associated needs for more employee education and more internal audits. I'd suggest deleting that paragraph. For starters, the SFLC FSF are neither the only organizations to distribute software under the GNU GPL, nor the only organizations to file lawsuits based on GNU GPL violations. I have to state it again: this is not the way I would have written the page; it is a version of the page that preserves all terms we had on that page. If we agree on another version I'm very happy. Alternatively, rephrase it. Software distributed under The Apache License can be included in proprietary software, without the legal obligation of releasing the entire source code tree, to the users of the program. All that is required, is an attribution of the Apache Licensed source code. The Apache License reduces: * The need for employee education; * The frequency of internal audits; * The intensity of internal audits; I like this, possibly with some minor rewording in order to keep the angle on compliance and compliance costs? Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 23 February 2015 at 03:41, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23/02/15 00:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific actions by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and the Free Software Foundation (FSF): an ascertained violation due to inclusion of copyleft code in a proprietary product results in the obligation to make the entire product source code available to the public. The Apache License avoids this risk and the associated needs for more employee education and more internal audits. I'd suggest deleting that paragraph. For starters, the SFLC FSF are neither the only organizations to distribute software under the GNU GPL, nor the only organizations to file lawsuits based on GNU GPL violations. I second that. I really like the rest of the documentation, but the last paragraph is not needed. We have no business telling how other licenses work. Alternatively, rephrase it. Software distributed under The Apache License can be included in proprietary software, without the legal obligation of releasing the entire source code tree, to the users of the program. All that is required, is an attribution of the Apache Licensed source code. The Apache License reduces: * The need for employee education; * The frequency of internal audits; * The intensity of internal audits; That could also work, because it does not mention the other licenses. rgds jan i. jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU6pNbAAoJEKG7hs8nSMR7E8kQAIklccMeKesrd+RaNhjbx4Pu DPbEQM64aO6oWHQij7MEZZFONo9jd0PO9RSzh4puF+Kn3xmLMOkqgQJtUW+h9v5t Sc+I/43gangig4UwH1Mt3kcpR8ZyG/A8H5osw1vDmT/zj5BlX8AhJ8qSXC4YuzXD nyB7RrlRCZqpN3lI03/CibzP6KfN7Qd7aocdRT+p5AFO1T+4zvfmZATPz04YXHAZ X59aFtJkIon0toraWfFPFdNRjZdpcI3jekCxPRmGOHFoCTumyNlgCIc6u8JjfsR+ 3XFxVnO2gsdAN10TBg498itC2BQ1ZIQO/9R2ZrRGwbioMbo9TNCroz205TxmvoPx iMLfZU1YthbmrG1+KGFLSNMw5P7g5qPKVGrO+geNoLYXH9Ww4Mgl0uO/YGRVjDi/ n0hdUA61Rn4aEaalChmipMad8vitYZuZaiY/aR1RrcMJnmg5u3DCsrBNtTUnepYR Mk17JhyG9bS83Qm5DaRi5QQif1+fNZQtVGlzlme4FIACriSggyFxySw6Dkk71VmM C4e1+s6SnrBEyPWbvOZOdu/sHFOyg/XUzKgzX3y7bAW0vFlGPSdzXP6ldgWaX8nY Kfj6i6B5j4qQuzLs40pY6sxTLFdxm6vttuHxuQXffC4R1SSygDlE4C8mjYPE8T6q ZXZHAmpKcWXR14kYloo4 =MrUr -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23/02/15 00:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific actions by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and the Free Software Foundation (FSF): an ascertained violation due to inclusion of copyleft code in a proprietary product results in the obligation to make the entire product source code available to the public. The Apache License avoids this risk and the associated needs for more employee education and more internal audits. I'd suggest deleting that paragraph. For starters, the SFLC FSF are neither the only organizations to distribute software under the GNU GPL, nor the only organizations to file lawsuits based on GNU GPL violations. Alternatively, rephrase it. Software distributed under The Apache License can be included in proprietary software, without the legal obligation of releasing the entire source code tree, to the users of the program. All that is required, is an attribution of the Apache Licensed source code. The Apache License reduces: * The need for employee education; * The frequency of internal audits; * The intensity of internal audits; jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU6pNbAAoJEKG7hs8nSMR7E8kQAIklccMeKesrd+RaNhjbx4Pu DPbEQM64aO6oWHQij7MEZZFONo9jd0PO9RSzh4puF+Kn3xmLMOkqgQJtUW+h9v5t Sc+I/43gangig4UwH1Mt3kcpR8ZyG/A8H5osw1vDmT/zj5BlX8AhJ8qSXC4YuzXD nyB7RrlRCZqpN3lI03/CibzP6KfN7Qd7aocdRT+p5AFO1T+4zvfmZATPz04YXHAZ X59aFtJkIon0toraWfFPFdNRjZdpcI3jekCxPRmGOHFoCTumyNlgCIc6u8JjfsR+ 3XFxVnO2gsdAN10TBg498itC2BQ1ZIQO/9R2ZrRGwbioMbo9TNCroz205TxmvoPx iMLfZU1YthbmrG1+KGFLSNMw5P7g5qPKVGrO+geNoLYXH9Ww4Mgl0uO/YGRVjDi/ n0hdUA61Rn4aEaalChmipMad8vitYZuZaiY/aR1RrcMJnmg5u3DCsrBNtTUnepYR Mk17JhyG9bS83Qm5DaRi5QQif1+fNZQtVGlzlme4FIACriSggyFxySw6Dkk71VmM C4e1+s6SnrBEyPWbvOZOdu/sHFOyg/XUzKgzX3y7bAW0vFlGPSdzXP6ldgWaX8nY Kfj6i6B5j4qQuzLs40pY6sxTLFdxm6vttuHxuQXffC4R1SSygDlE4C8mjYPE8T6q ZXZHAmpKcWXR14kYloo4 =MrUr -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 02/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: I'll propose a rewrite And here we are. It is not the way I would have written it, but it seems a reasonable way to fulfill what I believe to be part of the OpenOffice mission (whatever people think): educating users to basic concepts about free, open source software and licenses. This is the proposed new version of http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html meant to will preserve SEO value and informative value, but (hopefully) in a more neutral tone. Wordings and minor mistakes can always be improved; what I'd like to know is if this version can be OK in general. We won't necessarily end with an agreement of course, but it still believe it's worth a try, since we can't give up part of the de-facto OpenOffice mission. --- ##The Apache OpenOffice Compliance Advantages As you probably already know, you don't own software in the same way you own a chair or a desk. Instead, you license the software from the publisher; this gives you permission to use the software, but only under terms specified by the license. In the case of Apache OpenOffice, this license is the [Apache Software License 2.0][1], a free and open source software license. Like other open source licenses, the Apache License explicitly allows you to copy and redistribute the covered product, without any license fees or royalties. The Apache License is a permissive license: companies and individual developers who create derivative products of OpenOffice can do so free of any constraints on the license to apply to the derivative product they release. This makes OpenOffice an excellent choice for users and developers who want to avoid compliance woes and related risks and costs. ##For Users: Reduced Software License Compliance Costs In the case of commercial software, the licensing terms typically say how many users or PC's may access the software. The terms might even include a clause allowing the vendor to audit your usage of the software. In order to avoid the expense and penalties of an audit from the Business Software Alliance (BSA), including those originated by employees turning in their employer for software piracy, organizations are increasingly adopting Software Asset Management (SAM) practices to ensure that their use of commercial software complies with the applicable licenses. These practices generally include employee education along with the purchase of software to track licenses and software use within the organization. The combined cost of these SAM practices is the cost of compliance for using commercial proprietary software products. It is an expense that does not make your organization more productive. It is purely risk mitigation. Along with license, maintenance and training costs, it is one of the expenses of using commercial software. Open source software like Apache OpenOffice, instead, comes with a license that explicitly permits free redistribution. This reduces the cost of compliance for many organizations, since tracking application usage is not needed. ##For Developers: Reduced Constraints on Derivative Products The permissive nature of the Apache License means that developers and companies distributing derivative products needn't worry about combining their code with the OpenOffice code and releasing derivative products under their license of choice. Unlike other open source licenses (the so-called copyleft licenses), the Apache License has no viral effects, i.e., it does not influence the license of the derivative product. Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific actions by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and the Free Software Foundation (FSF): an ascertained violation due to inclusion of copyleft code in a proprietary product results in the obligation to make the entire product source code available to the public. The Apache License avoids this risk and the associated needs for more employee education and more internal audits. [1]: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 --- Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 02-02-2015, at 22:41, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 3 Feb 2015 03:29, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote: Simon, This is OT. What is? I am participating in a discussion of the page referred to legal-discuss by someone else. My last contribution was a question/suggestion in response to Andrea. As far as I can remember, nothing I have posted so far has been unrelated to that topic. S. Hold on… I meant that my comment was OT, not yours. louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 02.02.2015 14:34, Simon Phipps wrote: That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking is why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known for compliance risks), which GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users avoid? All licenses with a copyleft, even with the weakest, force developers into compliance (but never users). A developer has to find out in all cases, whether he or she could satisfy the copyleft clause and - if applicable - in what way she or he can do it. A problem as well is, that there are too many free software licenses. Nevertheless I'm a fan boy of a powerful copyleft. Freedom is necessarily stressful. Kind regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
2015-02-02 14:34 GMT+01:00 Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote: 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 3) There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle path and avoid much of this risk. The Apache License is one example. 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further into using OpenOffice. I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us to say. The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking is why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known for compliance risks), which GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users avoid? I'd say OpenOffice.org itself. Roberto S.
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Thanks Michael, -- Original Message -- From: RA Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 07:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] All licenses with a copyleft, even with the weakest, force developers into compliance (but never users). A developer has to find out in all cases, whether he or she could satisfy the copyleft clause and - if applicable - in what way she or he can do it. orcmid I think every open-source license has compliance conditions, even it if is only the necessity of preserving notices and perhaps providing attribution to the original source. Also, many releases, under any kind of license, may have dependencies and components under different licenses. So attention is always required. And yes, then the developer must determine what is to be done about all of that. And for a firm, there is the need for legal advice. /orcmid A problem as well is, that there are too many free software licenses. Nevertheless I'm a fan boy of a powerful copyleft. Freedom is necessarily stressful. Kind regards Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote: 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 3) There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle path and avoid much of this risk. The Apache License is one example. 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further into using OpenOffice. I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us to say. The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking is why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known for compliance risks), which GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users avoid? S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/02/15 14:59, Rob Weir wrote: There is no mention of LO on this page, nor any suggestion of it. A thing does not have to specifically mention the target for the target to be understood. Even if, as you allege, there is no such target. jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU0DCjAAoJEKG7hs8nSMR7JRkQAINqfVWPw4TacUnMp7m/e634 kFIsFVh4b5v9vO1YEBzzJ+KnMSjIEFJdG2+sggnaEUclfHaKV89TNnGnAkQhi92X iIX4dzxIQ3xPyO+I0fvBG4KAaghsnY4P1S/qjGW6HfUHs11jtipVV7nJ6OKqxToF x3MqAJVIqGr5ZxlZCvYGHlkeGIlbnXoh87AIVTOBfhlUFx6XbsasmK4fLwc9RjdR 4CbSqDb8ZL0F0sQSmVGf1e5pImm5jssdKJhedO1Vi4IE68zLxEbrrueBSL0/7zal QjrgvVzLcDGXx4nyoqfIWTkukxU8hszhQBJlsbgBFXT3ocDuZkpcPcCi32bslsLS 6jImd+dQ1ly3YTWLwGDSoaGZuScIv9ozPSbXQOoevsyPX4O8cxZAFMuo0sh/n/II MM5UfDOz6opogvRHbXWSt0Q3tGQ96soP95WgdU8YE+7qYC8kbym4Aaj3VIT4yIpk pjvvEJhe4DwhqOjPTxowWU+UX+Dm7Pu4JnVtPKW9qMh/aVmnBrT1xep/BTZhp35h 53kUccHP/vzSSRnKEGbhcIFI6R7rbmwZc1Zoln80PmUL76fkbFJuHzCaqsOiN/iK 0kgPgSNF7OpW49MZFMUuylroySgGR4EkK2/vbrBCZsVoZl+h/GKNggi3SdjAdPMK q0wPcarTKkvsInqck5YP =K4s9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote: 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 3) There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle path and avoid much of this risk. The Apache License is one example. 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further into using OpenOffice. I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us to say. The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking is why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known for compliance risks), which GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users avoid? There is no mention of LO on this page, nor any suggestion of it. Similarly the why page on ODF does not mention LO nor suggest LO does not support ODF. Not everything revolves around LO.IMHO, it is sufficient to show the advantages of ALv2 for those who are concerned about this risk. The fact that such concerns exist is shown, for example, by coverage in the New York Times about this risk, If LO wishes to show how the MPL addresses this risk they are welcome to put a similar page on their own website. In fact they could use our version as a base, since it is available for anyone to use under ALv2. -Rob S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking is why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known for compliance risks), which GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users avoid? There is no mention of LO on this page, nor any suggestion of it. I did not say it did. I am a regular contributor to this project and my comments are in that capacity, not as a representative of anyone else. My question stands. S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Simon, This is OT. On 02-02-2015, at 12:39, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: snip S. Out of curiosity, why do you continue to support LibreOffice? After all, you visibly contribute to this project in at least a couple of areas. I haven’t checked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you were also a member of the Apache Software Foundation. As you know, Apache OpenOffice is now, more than ever, driven by a community where no one entity imposes its will by dint of coding force or license or any other tactic. And as you surely also know, the continuing division between Apache OpenOffice and LO hardly seems to benefit the actual users of either, nor the legacy users of OOo. I can’t imagine that contributors to either project favour the continuation of the split. Personally, I would like to end the division and collaborate where feasible. Best, louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 3 Feb 2015 03:29, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote: Simon, This is OT. What is? I am participating in a discussion of the page referred to legal-discuss by someone else. My last contribution was a question/suggestion in response to Andrea. As far as I can remember, nothing I have posted so far has been unrelated to that topic. S.
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote: 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 3) There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle path and avoid much of this risk. The Apache License is one example. 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further into using OpenOffice. I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us to say. The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
I think the enumeration provided by Rob below is more grounded and conditional than the web page itself. For me, the page itself is simply propaganda, as appealing as it is for those with an ideological commitment to open-source development. Whatever the facts it is based on, however true they are, it lacks reality and context and, by omission, exaggerates how much this impacts anyone. For example, it suggests, absent context, that Linux is a bad proposition because of the GPL. Likewise GNU Tools and the LAMP stack (not to mention issues for on-line services with some GPL3 variants). That leaves what? FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and other software based on permissive licenses. I don't think there are many here who are satisfied with that conclusion and those concerns, while happily running Debian/Ubuntu and other distributions as well as OpenSolaris, etc. I can certainly understand why folks like Bradley Kuhn and those who have learned of his objections are dismayed over this. Note that Kuhn presents the Compliance Costs openoffice.org page as being from the Apache web site and he uses it to suggest that the ASF has become copy-left hostile. Identification of the page with the ASF is a fact, too, if one looks at who hosts the site and owns the domain name. It fits his agenda to point that out (and not point out that node.js is under a permissive license). One can also see, then, how this situation elevated onto the legal-discuss list. In any case, my attention is going to be on Apache OpenOffice as an affirmative offering of value, not contrast with suggested negatives. AOO appeals to those who consider adoption of AOO in support of their personal and office productivity needs. They and their organizations are supported by demonstrating how AOO can be relied upon as dependable and useful in their actual circumstances. I think that is the most important way to establish that an open-source project has delivered something tangible and practical. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:58 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Pedro and Jürgen, It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well. It is satisfying, it is credible to us, and it can be a mistake. Facts are more nuanced than portrayed. It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken there. There are many places where such matters can be discussed without embroiling the project. The page boils down to saying the following: 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 3) There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle path and avoid much of this risk. The Apache License is one example. 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further into using OpenOffice. I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us to say. Regards, -Rob A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated software here first. I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA operates. Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement without lawsuits at https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx. My main point is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone for whom license management is a serious concern. Also, the BSA does not pursue individuals using software separate from and outside of their employment. It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution to the public interest. The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not known what the actual discussion was at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser. The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html. (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Just my $0.02, Actually the page makes sense. What is happening is that a group of free software advocates see the advantages of permissive licenses, and particularly the success of the ASF, as a threat to their business. Bradly Kuhn in particular has always been aggressive towards OpenOfficeas an Apache Project[1] and seems to want to take it against the ASF[2] lately. I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read licenses anyways :). I honestly don't think having a compliance costs page will make a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such things through a legal process, I guess that can't do any harm. Regards, Pedro. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 30-01-2015, at 15:36, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Pedro and Jürgen, It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. +1 snip It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution to the public interest. Agreed. The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not known what the actual discussion was at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser. The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html. (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still unanswered question from the list is about whose voice this statement is made in. The footnote says it is not the voice of the ASF. You seem to be disingenuous here, Dennis :-) Seems evident to me that speaking voice is AOO’s, not Apache’s. Which raises the question, how much rope does an Apache project have in attitudinal and tonal if not legal issues? Presumably, from the reaction so far witnessed, when the tone could affect business operations. It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects. The only ASF compliance concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all governing licenses. That is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors. The only advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply. And that interested parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances. Okay—this is more or less what I hinted at, anyway. Out of curiosity, do we know why Bradley has taken to finding us so objectionable? I know he finds the ICLA, any CLA, a foul bargain for the contributor, and that BSD-style licenses reek of sulfur and cloak the corruption of freedom’s community with false gold. Or something like that. I’m as opposed to neoliberalism and love a David Graeber-style anarchism as the next hyper-educated guy, but I even more like practical solutions, i.e., those that work in the world. I also like Bradley, insofar as I have spoken to him in narrow circumstances, but would be curious if he’s also railed against, say, Mozilla, or Ubuntu, or any other slightly fallen angel. -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 To: OOo Apache Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read licenses anyways :). I honestly don't think having a compliance costs page will make a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such things through a legal process, I guess that can't do any harm. Regards, Pedro. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA - 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: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Louis, A PS. There was also something on the legal-discuss list about correcting a slide deck. I have no idea what that was. An afterthought. It struck me, thinking about this some more, that the position of the ASF around conduct in the public interest, including making open-source software that is freely available to the public, can be seen in the license. The license is a permissive one. Not only is the software free to use, but there is no prohibition against employment in closed source works. Similarly, there is no prohibition against employment in copy-left works. The license rules are the same for everybody and my impression is that AL version 2 even exists was to make copy-left use more satisfactory to the FSF. There is not only no discrimination against forms of use, there is no discrimination against development and commercial models, within the broad provisions and simple requirements of the ALv2. Resolution of how open-source plays out in that broad world is left to other forces and factions. The ASF is clear where it stands and how it is not a partisan any further than that. That's how I see it. I am certain that there are participants on Apache Projects that do not share that broad view. And some of the constraints on ASF Projects do not apply to projects elsewhere, even when the Apache License is used. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 14:06 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs Louis, Summarizing on top, I didn't check the recent video from Bradley Kuhn. I think the objection is to the characterization of copy-left and conflation with the cost of compliance for commercial, closed-source software, and comparing with ALv2 in that regard. At least that is what I got in a quick scan of the legal-discuss @a.o list. On legal-discuss it was asked whether the web page was with the voice of the PMC or of an individual. I'm not sure there was a satisfactory answer. Apparently the primary concern has been addressed with the footnote. I think the concern of ASF officials is that the only constituted entity here is the Foundation. I am not certain why it is about the PMC, and it is fair to ask where AOO is of one voice. I wasn't thinking very hard about any of that. I don't think there was anything about CLAs, at least not on the legal-discuss thread. I don't follow the remark about when the tone could affect business operations. Sorry. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 13:30 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis E. Hamilton Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs On 30-01-2015, at 15:36, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: [ ... ] You seem to be disingenuous here, Dennis :-) Seems evident to me that speaking voice is AOO’s, not Apache’s. Which raises the question, how much rope does an Apache project have in attitudinal and tonal if not legal issues? Presumably, from the reaction so far witnessed, when the tone could affect business operations. [ ... ] - 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: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Louis, Summarizing on top, I didn't check the recent video from Bradley Kuhn. I think the objection is to the characterization of copy-left and conflation with the cost of compliance for commercial, closed-source software, and comparing with ALv2 in that regard. At least that is what I got in a quick scan of the legal-discuss @a.o list. On legal-discuss it was asked whether the web page was with the voice of the PMC or of an individual. I'm not sure there was a satisfactory answer. Apparently the primary concern has been addressed with the footnote. I think the concern of ASF officials is that the only constituted entity here is the Foundation. I am not certain why it is about the PMC, and it is fair to ask where AOO is of one voice. I wasn't thinking very hard about any of that. I don't think there was anything about CLAs, at least not on the legal-discuss thread. I don't follow the remark about when the tone could affect business operations. Sorry. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 13:30 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis E. Hamilton Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs On 30-01-2015, at 15:36, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: [ ... ] You seem to be disingenuous here, Dennis :-) Seems evident to me that speaking voice is AOO’s, not Apache’s. Which raises the question, how much rope does an Apache project have in attitudinal and tonal if not legal issues? Presumably, from the reaction so far witnessed, when the tone could affect business operations. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
(re sending through the Apache relay this time ..) Hi Dennis; There is never actually such thing as the voice of the project. We have our reasons for choosing a license and it's healthful to explain it's advantages but, at least in the US, in order to give legal advice you have to be a lawyer so it's understandable that the ASF has to step and clarify that opinions are not legal advice in any form. This said, the project is sufficiently open that you do not need to ask to this list who wrote the page or who is the target audience: you can look up the commit history and you will notice that it has only been touched by ASF members (and PMC members). I would expect the PMC has consensus (even if lazy) on that. Now as a side note, and just IMHO, both candidates for AOO chair fail to fulfill what I consider a fundamental requisite for being the next PMC chair: someone wanting to be the PMC chair should already be in the PMC. According to [1] The*/Chair/*of a Project Management Committee (PMC) is appointed by the Board from thePMC Members http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members. Yes, I know the PMC can do workarounds and bring someone new to the PMC but *hey* ... people in the PMC have responsibilities: you guys shouldn't lay those on people external to the PMC that are not up to date with what is going on within the PMC *today*. I would also expect that candidates that run for PMC chair will be willing to serve in the PMC and support whomever is elected from within the PMC or else this process doesn't really make sense (again just IMHO). Pedro. [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Pedro and Jürgen, It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well. It is satisfying, it is credible to us, and it can be a mistake. Facts are more nuanced than portrayed. It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken there. There are many places where such matters can be discussed without embroiling the project. A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated software here first. I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA operates. Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement without lawsuits at https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx. My main point is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone for whom license management is a serious concern. Also, the BSA does not pursue individuals using software separate from and outside of their employment. It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution to the public interest. The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not known what the actual discussion was at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser. The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html. (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still unanswered question from the list is about whose voice this statement is made in. The footnote says it is not the voice of the ASF. It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects. The only ASF compliance concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all governing licenses. That is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors. The only advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply. And that interested parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances. - Dennis PS: Other circumstances had me learn, recently, that the reason the Chair of the PMC is an Officer of the Foundation is for important legal purposes with regard to the nature of the Foundation and the umbrella it creates for projects under its auspices. Some of the legal considerations and their honoring are viewed as extending to the PMC as well and the Chair is accountable to the Foundation for that. The PMC, in addition to its attention on the direction of the project is also governed by some legal requirements. I know that's pretty abstract, it is for me too. I expect that Chairs get on-the-job training in such matters. I surmise that the charge to operate in the public interest and within the parameters the Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is paramount. -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 To: OOo Apache Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read licenses anyways :). I honestly don't think having a compliance costs page will make a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such things through a legal process, I guess that can't do any harm. Regards, Pedro. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA - 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: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Hi Dennis, On Jan 30, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Pedro and Jürgen, It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well. It is satisfying, it is credible to us, and it can be a mistake. Facts are more nuanced than portrayed. It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken there. There are many places where such matters can be discussed without embroiling the project. A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated software here first. I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA operates. Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement without lawsuits at https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx. My main point is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone for whom license management is a serious concern. Also, the BSA does not pursue individuals using software separate from and outside of their employment. It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution to the public interest. The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not known what the actual discussion was at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser. The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html. (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still unanswered question from the list is about whose voice this statement is made in. The footnote says it is not the voice of the ASF. You will find some more discussion on private@oo.a.o where you may be resubscribed to soon. It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects. The only ASF compliance concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all governing licenses. That is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors. The only advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply. And that interested parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances. Exactly - so what the project writes here is NOT ASF policy unless we want to be more general and find a way to have it be an opinion of many. - Dennis PS: Other circumstances had me learn, recently, that the reason the Chair of the PMC is an Officer of the Foundation is for important legal purposes with regard to the nature of the Foundation and the umbrella it creates for projects under its auspices. Some of the legal considerations and their honoring are viewed as extending to the PMC as well and the Chair is accountable to the Foundation for that. The PMC, in addition to its attention on the direction of the project is also governed by some legal requirements. I know that's pretty abstract, it is for me too. I expect that Chairs get on-the-job training in such matters. I surmise that the charge to operate in the public interest and within the parameters the Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is paramount. The board will lean in as needed, but better to go the other way and seek clarity. I am taking it as a sign of this project's maturity within Apache that this is a quiet discussion. Let's keep it to the frequency of one reply per person per day. If anyone wishes to propose other language for these pages then we should discuss it - slowly and carefully. I agree with Jürgen that we should be playing our game. The game is an Apache OpenOffice and an ASF game. It is neither an OpenOffice.org nor is it a TDF game. Personally I am at Apache for the permissive license, others have their reasons. That they are here is enough for me. Regards, Dave -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 To: OOo Apache Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
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
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: 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. IMHO it should not be considered unusual for an Apache project to have a page that explains why it thinks that the license that is mandatory for all Apache releases has some specific benefits over the licenses that are forbidden in all Apache releases. It would be odd if we could not make that argument. Regards, -Rob 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. Juergen 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
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
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org 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. It is useful to those who have an interest and concern about license compliance. That's the point, to have a keyword-rich page that places well in search results for those potential users who are concerned specifically with compliance risk. intended purpose. Note: This is how all the why pages are structured. They are single topic pages that delve into a specific reason why someone might be interested in OpenOffice. So even if they have no idea that OpenOffice exists, they will find this page when they search for a related concern, e.g., ODF, End of Life of Office 2003, free software for new computers, and, yes, cost of compliance. You, or anyone else might not care about cost of compliance, or for that matter, End Of Life of Office 2003. That's fine. This page is not intended for you. The way to evaluate it is from the perspective of someone who is researching this topic, the person for whom this is a topic of interest. This is an important SEO technique, to make it possible for those who don't even know that OpenOffice exists, but who have a problem that we solve, to find our website. The fact that these are genuine, real-world concerns can be seen from their coverage in the New York Times and in industry press: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/business/26ping.html?_r=2; http://www.industryweek.com/software-amp-systems/cost-open-source-licensing-compliance 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. Similarly, the ASF does not have a position on public sector procurement, upgrades to Office 2003 or what file format someone should use. On none of these questions does the ASF have an official stance. However, these are issues that are of interest to many, and for which AOO has a good answer, so it is appropriate to have pages that explain why someone with these concerns might prefer AOO. Finally, note that we do not place these why pages prominently in our blog or the front page of the website. The main intent is to to be found by someone searching for keywords related to these topics. It is not intended as as trollbait for the FSF. Regards, -Rob 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. 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Pedro and Jürgen, It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well. It is satisfying, it is credible to us, and it can be a mistake. Facts are more nuanced than portrayed. It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken there. There are many places where such matters can be discussed without embroiling the project. The page boils down to saying the following: 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 3) There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle path and avoid much of this risk. The Apache License is one example. 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further into using OpenOffice. I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us to say. Regards, -Rob A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated software here first. I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA operates. Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement without lawsuits at https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx. My main point is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone for whom license management is a serious concern. Also, the BSA does not pursue individuals using software separate from and outside of their employment. It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution to the public interest. The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not known what the actual discussion was at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser. The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html. (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still unanswered question from the list is about whose voice this statement is made in. The footnote says it is not the voice of the ASF. It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects. The only ASF compliance concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all governing licenses. That is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors. The only advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply. And that interested parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances. - Dennis PS: Other circumstances had me learn, recently, that the reason the Chair of the PMC is an Officer of the Foundation is for important legal purposes with regard to the nature of the Foundation and the umbrella it creates for projects under its auspices. Some of the legal considerations and their honoring are viewed as extending to the PMC as well and the Chair is accountable to the Foundation for that. The PMC, in addition to its attention on the direction of the project is also governed by some legal requirements. I know that's pretty abstract, it is for me too. I expect that Chairs get on-the-job training in such matters. I surmise that the charge to operate in the public interest and within the parameters the Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is paramount. -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 To: OOo Apache Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read licenses anyways :). I honestly don't think having a compliance costs page will make a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such things
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
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
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
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. Juergen 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
[DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
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. 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
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
I did look around some more. The page in question is only listed from the sidebar of the why section, under More Reasons, http://www.openoffice.org/why/. I think that is a far stretch from reasons AOO is valuable to use and I remain concerned about that (and whatever all of the localizations say). The Office 2013 end-of-life statement is now dated, April 2014 now being behind us. That page suggests an opportunity, that's fine. It talks about migration, and that's important. It's a good place to link to something about what questions to have answered in having migration work; that doesn't have to be there. There are some places on the New Computers and on the ODF page that could be updated and I do worry about giving the impression that interoperability is seamless in what is not said. Those matters are different than the concerns that arise over Compliant Costs. -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 10:20 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs 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. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/01/15 18:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: 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. This is one of six or so CYA pages on the OpenOffice site. The major reason for their existence, is to point ambulance chasers at, when they are convinced that their client is utterly blameless in the reported PICNIC. It would be more appropriate for those CYA pages to be part of the The Apache Software Foundation's official pages, than those of specific projects, but, until the board decides that officially sanctioned pages are needed, then individual projects need to address those issues. They obviously need to rewritten, to be sound less alarming, and pointless to people who understand neither their significance, nor raison d'être. This specific page is relevant to a broad swatch on potential adopters, because it outlines, albeit using FUD-orientated scenarios, potential outcomes of the various types of licenses, if they are not adhered to. One of the other CYA pages addresses a very specific scenario, that is extremely uncommon, but nonetheless emphasizes the importance of doing due diligence on all of the software the organization uses. (I don't remember the URL, and neither Baidu nor DDG seem to list it.) jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUyrCEAAoJEKG7hs8nSMR7obwQAIWL+DupZjx8mXXyKQgkV1Jx sV47TE68LIEEglupxZCOY8hukdSu+Gzu8a5+j1XksvaLesREngHb5hZ/Who5nea8 qNXHRbdVq0jFp0iI0UIuM0vpG8DNbhzHcjeLaANMoUUuFvZQqjyjTb6Xc5vfMqCB mTh8xOiXJ0C7BZpcq7scEGaib9dg0W+Vfa//U00Fpd9HCSVa3D2lxph3EWX9n9Hu rulATvA5sBNvYPrLTOEPHLXH5Kp2rksH9sOBroPl+Zj4THS7fSm7todNIXpX2azQ YjafLqZoZINBcNmOownIfkifNo4G7bLYQ8Y7C3VNis3nTD7bB6LWilNBv04ohzhk 3Bcp9l4C0AUbXaX33QQYpmBweqINl3MmylM7XRC1Nye7ew1eEe5I/S5AiUO1XTi2 ZUE/hoewQ9Cq07DWPbzmsFEnC7IMoKcL0Fd4afn3+lM6l7d7Sqd3bE3kx9hwWj4B xhAdpmDlkiexzhG1AuNsq9B2tU7tUEu+WEWiOtJH4WaNqQOJdX4qX9wCVSWXSsLi 7OBL0tJreVbFDaYQHjzNnLO5r7cjOkuWoPDOCKX3jR3nzoC0Fg0jydStkoWAaWIq FHTyzJuI4Xz7jXvtDHbRW0FhWI/zYVkQUltl2RBzC5DFKFM5Mm91MPoE3qzG26dw tBz3syg4B4T/UEOn8H0x =lwio -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
