Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: May I suggest we call time[1] on this discussion please? +1 S. [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Time%20Gentlemen%20Please - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Sigrid Carrera sigrid.carr...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:37:15 -0400 Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 14:04, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Greg Stein wrote: For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not be able to take it.[1] can someone enlighten me please? What is ICLA or a non-CLA? I have no idea and would like to know, what you're talking about. Here is the ASF's ICLA: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt Note: this is *not* a copyright assignment. People who contribute code, documentation, or other changes to the ASF retain full copyright of their work. All this ICLA does is establish clearly that the contributor grants to the ASF has all necessary rights (within their ability to do so) to distribute this Work. Thanks, Sigrid - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] FYI: Apache Incubator is now voting
On 06/12/2011 04:17 AM, André Schnabel wrote: Am 11.06.2011 16:24, schrieb Norbert Thiebaud: Such 'tradition' (like the non-biding vote at Apache for example), is a matter of collective culture, something that evolve organically by tacit consensus... over time. You may have noticed that there is no 'biding -'1 in the current vote so far (unless I missed one) I currently count 2. But am no expert for Apache procedures either. I count three. Decisions such as this one are by majority rule. Overview of the process here: http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg29185.html A full detail of the results of the vote will posted in about 27 hours. André - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Interesting observation wrt donations
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello, there's an interesting thing with regards to donations: Since the latest announcements on OpenOffice.org, we're getting nearly three times as many donations as usual. Thanks, folks, for the ongoing support! EXCELLENT! - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
2011/6/5 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net: In your questionary, the questions to me seem to be of two kinds: 1) questions that are targeted to individuals actions (sign Apache CLA, contribute code to Apache as well as to TDF ...) 2) fundamental questions on TDF (join Apache and consolidate there, choose a name for the product ...) The ASF is not a consortium. There is no mechanism for a foundation to participate as an entity, only individuals. I agree that naming is an important discussion. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev ljelou...@gmail.com wrote: So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part of ASF. It is not clear to me what you are seeking from Oracle. While it is true that the ASF will only release the code that was granted to us under the Apache License, Version 2.0, and furthermore that we will only accept changes to this code base under terms that allows us to release those changes under the same license; absolutely none of this prevents you from taking this code and: 1) integrating your own changes, and releasing the result under AGPLv3. 2) integrating your own changes, and releasing the result under MPL2. 3) doing the above with numerous other licenses and furthermore either dual licensing or even tri-licensing the code 4) integrating your own changes and releasing the result under a non-open source license (as long as you comply with the generous terms of the Apache License) What perhaps is more important than what you can do with this code is the fact that you do not need to ask anybody's permission to do so. You don't need to ask the ASF's permission. You do not need to ask Oracle's position. The Apache License, Version 2.0 gives you the expressed permission to do any or all of the above. Furthermore, there is no time limit. And this not only applies to the initial donation, but also to any and all enhancement made to this base under the auspices of the ASF. From my perspective, everything is totally symmetric. I am equally OK with somebody saying I realize that the original code was made by a for-profit corporation, but I won't release my changes under terms that allow it to be reintegrated into a proprietary product as I am with a statement that I realize that the code is open source, but I won't release my changes under open source terms. I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is. It is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance with the larger community. Direct participation in the development of that pool ensures that you can harvest that code back quickly and easily as there is no need to merge it with other changes that you held back. Furthermore the extension points you need for your value add will be in the base. Part of this vision is also that participants don't block one another. If IBM, for example, has a proprietary value add they should not be able to block somebody else from contributing substantially similar functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license. Similarly, if LO has some CopyLeft value add, they should not be able to block others from contributing substantially similar functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license. Again, fully symmetrical. It is also not clear to me what you mean by part of the ASF. In order to contribute small patches, you simply need to mail them to the mailing list or enter them in the bug tracker for the project. In order to submit larger changes, an ICLA and possibly a CCLA is required. To submit a pre-existing and released component to the ASF, you fill out a Grant. That's the extent of your involvement. Do this enough times and we may vote you in as a committer in order to lighten up our load in integrating your patches, and this will give you more of a direct say in the future direction of the product; and show an interest in the overall health of the product and we may even pull you into the Project Management Committee; but none of this is required in order to participate. Furthermore, submitting a patch of any size does not obligate you further. You don't need to maintain it. You aren't required to contribute anything further, related or unrelated to this original patch. Ever. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote: What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice? Worst case: a code base that you can cleanly relicense to your choice of license without any requirement to give anything back. This provides an opportunity to free yourself of constraints made by historical choices. AGPLv3 and MPL are both possibilities, as well as a number of others Ian Lynch described the best case here: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06533.html - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was neither necessary nor required. What was required was a standard Software Grant. Once that was provided neither side has pursued it any further. Can you also clarify the disposition of the trademarks please, Sam? Incomplete at this time. I will have more to say when I have something concrete to report. S. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate? I've outlined two here: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06542.html I will also note that these options are not mutually exclusive. There could be a small core of close cooperation and a large amount of code which could be the basis for the relicensing aspirations that I have heard expressed numereous times on this list. S. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
will be a part of making it happen. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Topics on this list
On 06/04/2011 07:45 AM, Volker Merschmann wrote: Hi all! As some of the recent discussion got cc'ed to diverse lists I'd like to remind all to keep the steering-discuss clean. It is dedicated to discussions of the members of the steering committee. You can be ensured that they are also reading other lists and channels. The lists and their themes can be found on http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists and/or As someone new to this list, as one who has responded to others who have posted here, and one who has followed up on a suggestion by Simon Phipps to post here, and as someone who is very interested in licensing discussions, can I ask for recommendations as to where discussions as to licensing should go? Thank you Volker - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
On 06/04/2011 08:34 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Sam Rubyru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Let me start with a request. If we are going to have a productive discussion, it would be best if it were done using respectful terms. If, however, as described below it is the intent of TDF [...] we can start by working under the predicat that, unless specified otherwise, any comments are the author's own and not representing anybody else? I accept that predicate, but will not that it is orthogonal to my request, which I will make again: if we are to have a productive conversation please try to do so respectfully. OpenOffice.org is not uniformly licensed. [..] If is licensed to many under one license, and LibreOffice has continued with that license. It is licensed to others under a different license. I thought we were talking about FLOSS here... not about what proprietary forks may or may not have done. The Apache License was explicitly designed to support Free and proprietary use alike. Note that while many use the term proprietary in a pejorative sense, I won't shy away from using that term as it is accurate. I believe that the key phrase in that comment is objections to contributing code to be used in proprietary apps. A fundamental goal of the Apache license is to satisfy the needs of those that wish to include the code in Free and proprietary software alike. Yes, I am aware of that 'feature'. I just happen to consider it a bug. We clearly disagree on this point. That's entirely OK and honest. I believe that if we want to attract everyone alike to contributing to a common code base -- wherever it resides -- then we need to establish this as a common goal. How exactly encouraging proprietary fork will attract contribution ? you are relying on the ethic and moral sens of corporation ? If only we had real life examples to give us clues on how realistic that is... humm... The ASF is full of successful examples of this. IBM WebSphere and Apache httpd is one such example. There are countless others based on different combinations of companies and products. If we do this, clearly there is much work that would need to be done. It will involve getting the consent of those that participate in this foundation and LibreOffice to relicense their work. It won't be easy, but I will be a part of making it happen. The very reason I decided to show-up was because 1/ the license was copy-left and 2/ TDF dropped the copyright assignment. (of course I found many other reasons to stay... but that's another topic :-) ) So I'd say... yes it won't be easy indeed, but I guess it won't be harder than to convince AF not to cater to proprietary sink-hole... No one is suggesting catering. We either find common ground (as you outline in your following paragraph) or we go our separate ways, hopefully parting as friends. But there is another solution, one that has happened in the past: convince the company with a proprietary fork that if they are truly interested in community support and contributions, they should join that community under terms that protect both our interest, not just its interests. And I believe that you have just precisely captured why the Apache License, Version 2.0 is the most appropriate choice. It is fully compatible not only with GPLv3 and LGPLv3, but also with use in 100% proprietary software. Norbert - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
On 06/04/2011 09:40 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello Sam, (emptying interesting bits of discussion for clarity). I think it goes without saying that everybody should be respectful to each other. Thanks! And I appreciate both the content and tone of this entire message. Let me try to rephrase the general terms of this discussion from the broad perspective of TDF (I'm not trying to suggest that this is an official message from the Steering Committee of TDF, but... you get the point). TDF started the LibreOffice eight months ago, and has so far released software, deployed infrastructure and other resources, defined and implemented processes while elaborating governance methods and structure (that's still a work in progress). TDF has had the ambition of being the future of the OpenOffice.org community and after 8 months it is very safe to assume that it has largely succeeded in being so. Granted, not everyone from OpenOffice.org has jumped to TDF; existing Oracle employees have not joined the LibreOffice project (obviously), and a few -but very few- people and teams have chosen either not to choose, or to reject TDF mostly on personal grounds. Oracle has ended up dropping the OpenOffice project as well as its commercial offerings around it as this line of business and project were not complying to their own internal criteria for profitability, and thus Oracle ended up dumping the IPR assets to the Apache Foundation. I'm delighted to read from Andrew Rist that Oracle will still support the existing OpenOffice infrastructure throughout the transition. The announcement from Oracle came in 8 months after the birth of the LibreOffice project. You will understand that any argument framing the discussion along the lines that now that OpenOffice is being transferred to the Apache Foundation we should all turn towards this project sounds weird, chronologically anachronistic, and probably counterproductive in our view. But this is not a reason for TDF and the Apache Foundation to stop discussing the matter at hand. Going back to the OpenOffice project, I think it's safe to assume four key elements in our discussion. Some of these are issues, but some others are just factors to be considered. - Oracle will not provide its existing OpenOffice engineers to continue the OpenOffice project. - Unless IBM pours engineers on it, it is likely that there will be a very small community of developers working on OpenOffice This point is not clear to me. What is clear to me is that if it turns out that this (not yet accepted, and therefore only potential) incubating project never establishes a diverse set of contributors that could survive the exit of any one of them, including IBM that the ASF would undoubtedly conclude that incubation was unsuccessful and terminate the incubation unsuccessfully. - IBM does have business and operational requirements that make the transfer of OpenOffice to an Apache environment desirable and appealing. - TDF and ASF have very different views on licensing. Simon Phipps made some very interesting proposals yesterday on the Apache list, and I'm glad to see that one of the many threads around this debate on the Apache mailing list is furthering this discussion; namely, that the OpenOffice project at Apache be not so much considered as an end to itself, but rather as an engineering project catering to specific needs of IBM while also helping the LibreOffice project in specific areas. The point on the OpenOffice project not providing binaries is going in that direction. I thus think that there is room for TDF and ASF to cooperate even if the two will not change their stance on licensing easily. This being said, many of us here at TDF still question the whole relevance of an OpenOffice project *anywhere* but inactive now that LibreOffice exists, runs and has been releases several versions of stable software. I hope this helps you understand more about our perception. Acknowledged. That being said, different people will come to different conclusions as to what is relevant to their particular interests, and I will say that choice of license is a factor in that decision. best, Charles-H. Schulz. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Topics on this list
On 06/04/2011 10:51 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, Volker Merschmann wrote on 2011-06-04 16.38: Sorry, I did not see that it has really been recommended. So much mails these days...;-) I thinkdisc...@documentfoundation.org will reach all interested people who are involved at TDF. same for me, it's hard to follow-up on all those e-mails. So, first of all a very warm welcome, it's good to have you here, and the open style of communicating is very much appreciated! I try to reply to the other messages soon. Indeed, I propose we stick to the disc...@documentfoundation.org mailing list for discussions. Just in case, here are the details: OK, I'm now subscribed there. Sorry for the noise/confusion. - Sam Ruby disc...@documentfoundation.org Subscription: discuss+subscr...@documentfoundation.org Digest subscription: discuss+subscribe-dig...@documentfoundation.org Archives: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ Mail-Archive.com: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/ GMANE: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss It is also available via Nabble at http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Discuss-f1621725.html So, again, thanks for being with us, and looking forward to a good discussion! Florian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was neither necessary nor required. What was required was a standard Software Grant. Once that was provided neither side has pursued it any further. As the Apache model is intentionally not based on Copyright Assignment, a grant of the copyright would quickly become irrelevant over time as people make contributions based on the terms specified in the Individual Contributor License Agreement and in the Apache License, Version 2.0 itself. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com wrote: As far as I know, there is only the intent of Oracle to donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear statement has been made as to what exact sourcecode this will cover. The ASF has a signed software grant with a specific list of source files. It's not even clear whether it will be the current codebase or some older version IBM is basing their version on. It is the codebase on openoffice.org. The intent is to move the full version history. The mechanics of this have yet to be worked out. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello, I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion. The views shared here are not any official TDF statement, but rather solely my own ones, acting as a volunteer who has been contributing to the OpenOffice.org project, and now the LibreOffice project, since 2004, investing lots of my private time and heart into the community. My hope is that you've appreciated the ample welcome that was provided for your input at on the ASF mailing lists. It has been suggested that we return the favor. I don't have a lot to say, but I will be watching this list and will respond to questions. While this too is not an official ASF statement, as VP of Legal Affairs for the ASF, I do have a particular focus on license issues. With that in mind: To bring this to an end: I seriously doubt that having a separate project, even as incubator, within the Apache Foundation, would bring benefit for anyone. The Document Foundation has been working for months not only on shaping a project, but also on shaping solid grounds to work on, providing the legal framework, and our open, meritocratic and transparent approach ensures that anyone -- individuals, organizations and businesses -- can contribute to the future. I do believe that a choice in license affects this statement. To be clear there is no license that satisfies the above statement. Nor am I going to ask anyone to change their choice in licenses. However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
