On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2 >> for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge >> advance to get a bit nearer both camps. >> > > Given licenses are the expression of the ethos of a community, it's
LO had no choice but to take LGPL. So more necessity/inertia than ethos. And -- according to Michael -- when it thought that MPL might be more acceptable TDF was quick to add MPL for new code contributions. This shows an ethos of flexibility. This is a good thing. One option TDF/LO did not have at the time was to take the core OOo code under ALv2, an option they now have via the Oracle SGA's to Apache. It might make sense to evaluate the new possibilities, including possibilities for collaboration, enabled by this change, a change that was not even remotely foreseeable, and therefore was not considered, when TDF/LO first started. > disingenuous and divisive to assume any community will drop its governance > approach like this, Pedro. It translates as "the path to collaboration is > your surrender; we can negotiate once you've done that". You make it sound This is obviously a touchy subject for you, Simon. But please read what Pedro wrote. He said: "If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2 for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge advance to get a bit nearer both camps." This is not asking for LO members to surrender or fall on their swords. It is suggesting that information be made available to LO developers who might wish to voluntarily make their code available under ALv2 as well as the existing LGPL/MPL. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the impression that nothing at TDF/LO that would prevent someone from doing this? > so innocent, too, by missing out the other requirement that Apache would > have for contributors to sign an ICLA and thus join Apache :-) > Signing the iCLA is not required for most patches. Regards, -Rob > S. >
