I think a clear-cut statement from the Board can answer a lot of questions and reduce a lot of negativity.
The Board should clarify: - that there will be no change of license; - that there will be no 'exclusive' features for the proposed enterprise edition other than dedicated support like priority bug-fixing, help, etc.; - that there will be no terminology/tags that might demotivate the non-individuals (be it small communities/NGOs/governments/ big enterprises) to use the LibreOffice Community Edition (I believe that the board will not chose the Personal Edition name). The recent inclusions in the development branch like 'Personal Edition' and the tag 'intended for individual use' surely demotivates the non-individuals to use the software; - that the LibreOffice Community Edition will function as effectively as the proposed LibreOffice Enterprise Edition without any restrictions; - that the intention of the board is not to commercialize the office suite which creates commotion among the great community that has been supporting LibreOffice since years; - that the board respects the principles of freedom (libre) software. A statement clarifying the above may help answering a lot of community members. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, July 9, 2020 9:18 PM, Michael Meeks <michael.me...@collabora.com> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 06/07/2020 10:27, Alexander Werner wrote in bugzilla at > > > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486#c23 > > Cleary, The Document Foundation must release a version that is open > > to all intended audiences. As clearly stated in the statues, the > > intended audience is: everyone, explicitly including COMPANIES and > > PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. > > Some comments on that; the statutes are public here: > https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/statutes/ > > > I quote from the preamble: > > "The objective of the foundation is the promotion and > > development of office software available for use by anyone > > free of charge." > > A tag and about box text doesn't modify any of this. The > fundamental license and availability for use by anyone free of charge > stays. > > Clearly that is so. Beyond tweaking the brand with a tag - no > change is suggested to the software or its distribution at all. > > Moving on let me include the omitted second paragraph: > > "The foundation promotes a sustainable, independent and > meritocratic community for the international development of > free and open source software based on open standards." > > These mission goals are not optional. We need to be > sustainable - How large a community do you think it is necessary to > have to sustain the software ? how do we promote that ? > > > The issue gets even clearer: > > "This software will be openly available for free use by anyone for > > their own files, including companies and public authorities, > > ensuring full participation in a digital society and without > > detriment to intellectual property." > > So - LibreOffice Personal -as-now- will be openly available > for free use by anyone; so that is also clearly met. > > - Some background on the history & philosophical context here: > > - Free Software has for decades been fighting against the > idea that it is free-as-in-beer, and talking of > free-as-in-freedom. > > - RMS regularly distinguishes Libre from Gratis, and talks > about the vital freedoms. Arguably the Open Source movement > itself is a reaction against this "free of price" frame. > > - if we take an extreme view of this paragraph in our statutes > that would lead me to the conclusion that we are mis-named: > we should be called "GratisOffice" - if freedom from price > is the core purpose of the project. Perhaps we're overdue > for a re-brand: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre > > if our core purpose is Gratis; it's just horribly > confusing to call ourselves Libre. > > - Many commnity members I've spoken to have little sympathy > for enterprises that just take, and contribute nothing > back except bug reports & associated aggravation. > > - They have even less sympathy for those who charge for using > our brand and software in the enterprise, and then > contribute nothing back. > > - By focusing here, it -can- sound as if you arguing that > our core purpose is to give free stuff to large, rich > enterprises ? that we should sweat and toil for free, > for the good of IBM, or Oracle, or ... =) surely not. > > - for me that's not a motivating factor whatsoever, I want > to collaborate with other contributors to promote and > develop an office suite available for use by anyone > free of charge; in a sustainable way. > > LibreOffice Personal/Community could be how we promote that. > > But really, how it is marketed, what tags go on the splash > screen - how we try to -effectively- (we're good at doing this > ineffectively ;-) steer people towards even starting to understand > that they need to contribute, whether directly themselves or via the > ecosystem - these all seem to be tactical issues. > > We know that existing attempts to do that are an utter > failure, with zero up-take. We know that enterprises (charitably) > don't even know that they should do the right thing here. > > We know that changing here might be disruptive, but having > some suggestions of what changes might be acceptable and some idea of > what success might look like would be really helpful. What do you > think TDF should concretely do to solve the problems I outline: > > > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04591.html > > We know that enterprises don't donate and that the vast > majority don't contribute, so it is individual persons via donations, > or via awesome contributions =) alongside the ecosystem who end up > funding what work goes on the project. > > I think Bjoern states that rather well here[1]: > > "IMHO, the same applies even stronger to @tdforg as an NGO: I > dont think other institutions -- especially commercial ones > that are not contributing to its projects -- have any moral > rights to its output." > > But, of course - perhaps there is another way that TDF as an > NGO can deliver its mission, stay true to its purpose, improve the > software, and create the big, grateful, fun community I keep banging > on about as a vision =) > > I'd really like to hear ideas there. Say we use a different, > or no tag for example - how do we get the message across to > enterprises effectively that they need to contribute ? either tons of > code themselves, or more realistically funding to the ecosystem ? how > does that differ from today ? and why do we think it will work ? we > can always try new things of course. > > Thanks ! > > Michael. > > [1] - > https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=1280753358605881352&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fthreadreaderapp.com%2Fthread%2F1280753358605881352.html > -- > michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity > > > Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks > (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org > Problems? > https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ > Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
