We could argue like this forever I am sure :-P. Hmm... about 10 years ago I wrote an article about the evilness of the GPL. I guess I should rescue it and upload it again just for didactical purposes.
For me the meritocratic foundation and the free software license are both in the Apache Foundation and I certainly wouldnt settle for less. Pedro. --- On Tue, 10/25/11, Norbert Thiebaud <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Norbert Thiebaud <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 11:33 PM > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:03 PM, > Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > --- On Tue, 10/25/11, Norbert Thiebaud <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > >> And look how well it has served us. Despite that > very > >> large concession, IBM still snubbed it and 9 > month > >> later started a new fork. > >> You give a hand, it want the whole body... > >> > > I will ignore for now the paranoia/plot theory, to > > note two issues: > > And yet the very page you quote also says: > "While in general we think LGPLv3 is a great & > sufficient license for > our code, others eg. Sun & IBM appear reluctant to > include LGPL code > into their products, " > so much for paranoia/plot theory... > > > > > 1) Its so easy to criticize IBM while ignoring the > > corporate interests that acelerated the original > > and only real fork. A fork that ended up costing > > the jobs of many good guys. > It is very flattering of you to assign such power to TDF, > but the > reality is that OpenOffice did not fit in Oracle Business > model > Oracle would have closed the OOo shop with or without > LibreOffice. > Look at the rest of the Open Source porfolio Oracle > 'inherited' from > SUN... and how well things have gone... > > > > If for you considering > > the MPL was a very large concession, for Oracle, > > which actually owns the code, making all the code > > AL2 is much bigger concession. > How is that? The only concession I see is one to IBM, > probably a > contractual one. making all the code AL2 does not 'concede' > anything > more. It is just yet another Hudson/Jenkins tantrum: If I > can't make > 70+% margin with the toy, at least I'll try to break it as > much as I > can before leaving the playground.... > > > > > 2) I can still read on the Go-OO site the desire > > to have the OpenOffice.org code owned by a > meritocracy > > like the Apache Foundation: > > > > http://go-oo.org/ (Freer Licensing section) > > And we ended-up with the best of both world: a meritocratic > foundation > _and_ a free software license. > why on earth would you imagine that after having > successfully done > that, we'd want to settle for less ? > > Norbert >
