On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > >I merged some fixes from bugzilla >that may be shared, and they have taken a lot of code that >they tagged as "contributed" by Oracle.
Are you sure about that? please read the CLA which many of the said bugzilla patches are covered with : "1. Contributor owns, and has sufficient rights to contribute, all source code and related material intended to be compiled or integrated with the source code for the OpenOffice.org open source product (the "Contribution") which Contributor has ever delivered, and Sun has accepted, for incorporation into the technology made available under the OpenOffice.org open source project." Are you sure that all the pieces you are scrubbing from bugzilla meet the 'and Sun has accepted, for incorporation into the technology made available under the OpenOffice.org open source project" requirement ? Seems to me that if they are still lingering in bugzilla, surely they have not been 'accepted' by SUN yet... So you are essentially merging some LGPLv3 patches, with no clear legal path to AL2. > > The problem is not really integrating the codebases but the > fact that the ownership of LO is so disperse and that TDF > is incapable of taking any relicensing decision. This is not a problem, this is a feature. Copy-left + decentralized ownership is a very effective way to protect 'Free' software... free as in freedom aka 'Libre'. Linux is a prime example of that. But if you want to pin-point a problem. that _IS_ the attempt of some corporate interest to force a unilateral re-licensing of the project, and then claim that 'convergence' is desirable. If convergence was desirable, then one obvious solution would have to continue contributing according to the license of the project. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > * A call to LibreOffice contributors also to contribute their changes to > Apache as the ASF is the long desired independent foundation for > OpenOffice.org. The long desired independent foundation _is_ TDF. By the time Oracle did its IBM-approved tantrum, TDF had already few releases out-the-door... On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Ian Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > > It just seems that there are too many individual interests > outweighing such a goal at present. > Apache OOo fork is born out of 'corporate' interest not 'individual' interests. Hence the fatal license road block. Norbert
