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
