On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am pretty sure we are safe. > > good, I have no stake in the old bugzilla content... so as long as you > are confident that all such stake-holder share Rob's interpretation of > what 'accepted, for incorporation' means (i.e that mere posting on a > ML or attachment to a bug repport means 'accepted, for > incorporation'... (I wonder why we bother with code review then, if > any patch submitted is deemed 'accepted, for incorporation').... > >> - it is my understanding that Oracle will also be making >> legal provisions about the bugzilla database. They provided >> the dump, its not like we stole anything. > I haven't seen the secret SGA... but I don't recall mention by > Oracle's representative of a blanket re-licensing of the bugzilla > databse under AL2... or for that matter about anything but a list of > file based on a specific snapshot of the source tree. > >>>> 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. >> >> It is a limitation. Only the copyright owner can make >> effective license claims so if the time comes to >> enforce the LGPL you will find the surprise of owning >> less than 10% the code doesn't help much. > > That is much more than 0% which is what both SUN/Oracle CLA and AL2 > effectively offer. > It is interesting though that you think that one need to 'own' more > than 800K lines of LO code before having standing. > Oh, and you are overlooking one option: it is quite possible to > designate an entity as your agent in these matter. so a bunch 'small' > copyright owner could mandate TDF, for example, to represent them. > >> >> Well I use FreeBSD and I am very glad to have helped Apple >> overthrow Microsoft. > We are not quite there yet... but in anycase this is 'meet the new > boss, same as the old boss'. > >> out there underestimate the resources SUN/Oracle put >> into OpenOffice. > > Ask Rob how much IBM bill internally for translation on a per-word > basis. Then calculate the investment for OpenOffice for 100+ > languages... and you'll get an idea why Rob is so interested in > Pootle. > It seems that IBM, contrary to you, is very aware of the resource > invested by the community.
Certainly, that would only be smart. I think having common, standard translations for Office document terminology can only be a good thing for all. Margins, Justification, Fonts, Paragraphs, and the rest, it is better to have a common set of translations available to all. Sure that saves $Millions for IBM (and Oracle and Novell and Microsoft), but it also lowers market barriers to a small person's idea. You don't have to be a large corporation to actually have translations to a large number of languages for common terms of art. Is that not what software freedom is really all about? Regards, Dave > > Norbert
