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 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 class of open source licenses that represent a middle > >> path and avoid much of this risk. The Apache License is one example. > >> 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned > >> with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further > >> into using OpenOffice. > >> I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us > >> to say. > >> > > > > The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of > > the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is > that > > we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. > > > 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 GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users > avoid? >
I'd say OpenOffice.org itself. Roberto > > S. >
