Thanks Jan, it is valuable to comprehend just how narrow individual exceptions
are.
Comment in-line
-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 14:53
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Background to Cooperation: ASF/AOO Principles, Policies, Practices
On 28 June 2015 at 19:49, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
[ ... ]
An example of an exception that is specific to the Apache OpenOffice
project is the distribution of convenience binaries that have writing-aid
plug-ins bundled with them that are not themselves under a license that is
acceptable for source-code releases. There are a number of specific,
delimited provisions under which this action is found consistent with
Apache principles although it is an exception to a general policy. This
practice was only introduced after obtaining review and eventual
concurrence via the list on which legal and license questions are discussed.
orcmid
The narrowness of the exception for these plug-ins is that they
contain no code, they deliver data in a general format that can
be used in a well-defined technique, and that they are completely
replaceable. Users can also install additional ones of their
choosing and remove/disable the ones that are provided in the
binary distributions as a convenience. It is also the case that,
if one inspects the plug-in (using a form of Zip package), one
would encounter all applicable license information and there would
be no confusion over the license that is specific to them material
conveyed by a given plug-in.
/orcmid
I would be very careful about interpreting the above extract. The plugins
do contains quite a lot of code, and some of them like the dictionaries are
not really
optional. We actually deliver plugins as part of our own exe, so we do
distribute some of the plugins without a special license.
But legal has looked at what we deliver and accepted it, so no need to
detail that further.
You also use the word narrowness, as if these exceptions are written in
stone, that is not the case, we can always ask for other exceptions if
needed (whether
we get them is a different matter).
orcmid
The specific *individual* exception is very narrow. That is what I meant.
And exceptions always apply to specific cases. For example, the one I linked
to is about a situation with Apache OpenOffice and it was asked with respect to
writing aids, GPL dictionaries in particular. The title of the issue is
Aggregation of GPL dictionaries with Apache OpenOffice,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117, and the question is,
specifically can Apache OpenOffice include GPL spell-checking dictionaries
with its binary releases?.
Of course there can be more exceptions, each reviewed and approved or
disallowed with respect to individual cases. And the exception granted to AOO
for the particular case is not an extension of policy. That is the point of my
remarks here.
On reflection, I also think that is why Sam Ruby did not discuss the
prospect of other licenses being comingled in those [dictionary] plug-ins.
That was not part of the request and legal was not about to expand the scope of
LEGAL-117 scope beyond what was asked for. My observations about other mingled
licenses at the time would best have gone back to the [P]PMC (the origin of the
exception request).
PS: I don't think legal has looked at what AOO delivers. They considered
the request and assume that the [P]PMC requested what it actually needed and
only what it actually needed and proposed to do. This is not a blanket
exception for all manner of plug-ins having GPL licenses and it applies
specifically to AOO binary distributions.
/orcmid
rgds
jan i.
[ ... ]
-
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
