Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:57:48 PM: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, <robert_w...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM: > > > >> > >> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code > >> from ASF into their products. > >> > > > > This is true, but would you call that collaboration? > > ABSOLUTELY. > > Q: "How does the TDF work with the ASF?" > A: "Snarf our code at will." >
This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be talking about what collaborative activities we foresee undertaking. We can't speak for others. We can only talk about what we're willing to do. Since ASF mandates the Apache 2.0 licence, there is zero additional the *project* needs to do to allow others to "Snarf our code at will". > Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in > our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They > can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified > code into LO. > > If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues. > That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that should be noted. There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating version numbers, etc. I can add that. > > I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source > > code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. I'm > > not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking that > > the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee > > collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent in > > the license. > > Calling TDF/LO "one of many who can take our source" is disingenuous. > They are VERY definitely NOT just "one of the crowd". > I see this distinction: -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice versus -- An extraordinary collaboration I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former. But that might be best emphasized in the "community" section of the proposal where we talk about the larger ecosystem. We can highlight their importance. But I'm not seeing anything that speaks to any collaboration that is qualitatively different than what "any other" downstream consumer does. Different in importance perhaps, but not different in nature. > If you're going to write a section on collaboration, then it must > include how they can use our code. > The Apache 2.0 license states how they can use our code, right? But let me see if I can get your point worked in. We probably don't disagree on this, just maybe where to stick it in the proposal. Regards, -Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
