On 5 June 2011 09:19, Norbert Thiebaud <[email protected]> wrote: > "Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid?" > > I don't think he is. > > "If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to > someone > like IBM for real dollars?" > > How do I know that it did not happen?
Because such transactions (if anything other than trivial) have to be recorded and it would get out. There are regulatory systems, auditors etc. do you know what negotiation occurred > between Oracle and IBM, do you know the terms they agreed to? No but then a negative doesn't prove a positive. If you want to look for conspiracies you can find them almost anywhere. On balance looking at the evidence the most likely explanation is ASF said they didn't need the copyright (confirmed by their people) IBM have an interest in the code for Symphony. Oracle have no real interest in the code but need somewhere to put it even if only for PR. They aren't going to give it to TDF for several reasons so where do they put it? ASF is a very logical choice given the other constraints. Ok, they *might* have done some convoluted backhand deal with IBM to ensure it was a permissive license but I don't see why they would need to, it was the logical thing to do for them anyway. It could be that IBM will take on some Oracle coders, I don't know, and I suppose that would be a form of payment but its small stuff in the scheme of things. all I know is > that whitin 30 minutes of the Oracle announce there was 3 page-long blog > from IBMers linking each-other and prasing it... that is not reacting to a > news, that is an orchestrated PR campaign. > Surely they will have talked about stuff behind the scenes and they want it to work. Not very surprising. " I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason " > Sure.. Who knows what footnote there is regarding the Trademark.. Oracle, > for example, grant unlimited use of the mark to Apache, but reserve the > right to use the mark itself as it see fit? with a well crafted NDA to boot > ? > I think this has now been explained by the ASF people that know licensing law. Then drop the code to Apache... see what happen. the worse thing that can > happen is that it dies... which from Oracle point of view is the same as if > they did not transfer the code...(for all intent and purpose the > openOffice.org project _is_ dead, look at > http://hg.services.openoffice.org/?sort=lastchange if you have any doubt) > and at best the code evolve well, and who knows, Apache can even achieve > what Oracle didn't: lure honest Free Software people to unwittingly promote > close-source by agreeing to contribute under the Apache License.... But there is an argument that if we want odf file format to succeed the more people commercial or otherwise that produce software supporting it the better. If you are strongly copyleft at all costs you will say this is too Machiavellian to be supported. OTOH, others might say the end justifies the means. Individuals will have to make up their own minds. > and at > some point they can take it all back ( a bug^Hfeature of the Apache > License) > and use the Trademark to capture a significant part of an unsuspecting > market (we, on these lists may be very aware of who the players are and who > does what... but the public at large is not) > I don't see how it is possible to "take it all back" Once licensed that code and subsequent derivatives are not in their control. Just like LO can go on developing as before. If they fork the project under their own new license, yes they could make a proprietary version but then so can anyone. I don't see that in Oracles plans - if it was why bother with ASF at all? To drag in some developers? Well possibly but they could argue that they already put in their fair share of development funding over the years. What a beautiful business plan. at worse you don't lose anything, at best > you got a ton of work for free. > Don't forget Sun and Oracle paid for a substantial part of what is now OOo and its derivatives so they could argue they have given the community a ton of work for free. Note: Trademark are usually not that important for developer centric > application/libraries... who remember what ethereal was? everybody moved on > to wireshark... Hudson is already a footnote in history, anybody that > matter > to that project already knows that Jenkins is their new home... Xfree86 ? > (come to think of it, I'm surprised they didn't apply to Apache.. it seems > to be the weapon of choice for counter-fork these days...) but for > end-users > of a product like OpenOffice.org that is a different story. > > And just in case that is not clear to some readers: > If you contribute code under the Apache License, you might just as well > have > contributed that code to Oracle with copyright assigignment. The copryright > assignment was there only to nullify the protection granted to you by the > GPL as far as the assignee (Oracle) is concerned. Apache License achieve > the > same thing, just more straight forwardly, with a much more polish PR spin > on > it. > > So if you had objection to contribute to Oracle under these terms you > should > be just as reluctant to contribute anything under the Apache License. > I'll let the Apache people reply to that as they are much better qualified to do so than I am. Norbert -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
