On 2/28/2014 8:13 AM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>
* The presence of templates that are not Gratis;
* The presence of templates that are not Libre;
* Some of the vocabulary used by SourceForge;
Not sure I understand this, can you please clarify? I'd be happy to
change
what could be a source of confusion.
a) One of the misconceptions about FLOSS, is that it is has to be
gratis. Whilst FLOSS can be sold, the license permits everybody to race
to the bottom, and offer the software for as close to gratis
as their economic situation permits. This creates the expectation that
the software is gratis.
There are some templates that require a payment to the creator, or other
third party. In some instances, that is made clear during the
downloading process. In most instances, it is clear only after
careful study of the licensing portion of the template. The payment
usually, but not always goes to a third party --- neither The Apache
Foundation, nor the creator of the template.
b) Being an Apache Foundation project, my expectation is that templates
be distributed under an Apache Licence. That is not the case. Instead,
they range the gamut from BSD through proprietary licenses that are
adamantly non-Libre.
(The licenses fail Open Software Foundation, Free Software Foundation,
and Debian Legal criteria for what constitutes a Libre licence
What would be helpful, would be if for each template:
* The license that it is distributed is clearly, and _accurately_ displayed;
* The cost, if any, is clearly displayed;
prior to downloading the template.
FWIW, the same thing also applies to extensions.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
