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
+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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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.
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
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
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
: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
] 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
(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
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
] 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
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
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
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.
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
...@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 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.
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
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
.
-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
-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
46 matches
Mail list logo
