Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Just my $0.02, Actually the page makes sense. What is happening is that a group of free software advocates see the advantages of permissive licenses, and particularly the success of the ASF, as a threat to their business. Bradly Kuhn in particular has always been aggressive towards OpenOfficeas an Apache Project[1] and seems to want to take it against the ASF[2] lately. I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read licenses anyways :). I honestly don't think having a compliance costs page will make a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such things through a legal process, I guess that can't do any harm. Regards, Pedro. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice Manual of Style
Sorry for the late reply ... I guess this could be considered the coding style manual in OpenOffice: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Cpp_Coding_Standards I personally don't like it but it is the style used in the source code and I don't think we should start introducing a new one. Pedro. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 30-01-2015, at 15:36, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Pedro and Jürgen, It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. +1 snip It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution to the public interest. Agreed. The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not known what the actual discussion was at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser. The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html. (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still unanswered question from the list is about whose voice this statement is made in. The footnote says it is not the voice of the ASF. You seem to be disingenuous here, Dennis :-) Seems evident to me that speaking voice is AOO’s, not Apache’s. Which raises the question, how much rope does an Apache project have in attitudinal and tonal if not legal issues? Presumably, from the reaction so far witnessed, when the tone could affect business operations. It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects. The only ASF compliance concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all governing licenses. That is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors. The only advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply. And that interested parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances. Okay—this is more or less what I hinted at, anyway. Out of curiosity, do we know why Bradley has taken to finding us so objectionable? I know he finds the ICLA, any CLA, a foul bargain for the contributor, and that BSD-style licenses reek of sulfur and cloak the corruption of freedom’s community with false gold. Or something like that. I’m as opposed to neoliberalism and love a David Graeber-style anarchism as the next hyper-educated guy, but I even more like practical solutions, i.e., those that work in the world. I also like Bradley, insofar as I have spoken to him in narrow circumstances, but would be curious if he’s also railed against, say, Mozilla, or Ubuntu, or any other slightly fallen angel. -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 To: OOo Apache Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read licenses anyways :). I honestly don't think having a compliance costs page will make a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such things through a legal process, I guess that can't do any harm. Regards, Pedro. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Louis, A PS. There was also something on the legal-discuss list about correcting a slide deck. I have no idea what that was. An afterthought. It struck me, thinking about this some more, that the position of the ASF around conduct in the public interest, including making open-source software that is freely available to the public, can be seen in the license. The license is a permissive one. Not only is the software free to use, but there is no prohibition against employment in closed source works. Similarly, there is no prohibition against employment in copy-left works. The license rules are the same for everybody and my impression is that AL version 2 even exists was to make copy-left use more satisfactory to the FSF. There is not only no discrimination against forms of use, there is no discrimination against development and commercial models, within the broad provisions and simple requirements of the ALv2. Resolution of how open-source plays out in that broad world is left to other forces and factions. The ASF is clear where it stands and how it is not a partisan any further than that. That's how I see it. I am certain that there are participants on Apache Projects that do not share that broad view. And some of the constraints on ASF Projects do not apply to projects elsewhere, even when the Apache License is used. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 14:06 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs Louis, Summarizing on top, I didn't check the recent video from Bradley Kuhn. I think the objection is to the characterization of copy-left and conflation with the cost of compliance for commercial, closed-source software, and comparing with ALv2 in that regard. At least that is what I got in a quick scan of the legal-discuss @a.o list. On legal-discuss it was asked whether the web page was with the voice of the PMC or of an individual. I'm not sure there was a satisfactory answer. Apparently the primary concern has been addressed with the footnote. I think the concern of ASF officials is that the only constituted entity here is the Foundation. I am not certain why it is about the PMC, and it is fair to ask where AOO is of one voice. I wasn't thinking very hard about any of that. I don't think there was anything about CLAs, at least not on the legal-discuss thread. I don't follow the remark about when the tone could affect business operations. Sorry. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 13:30 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis E. Hamilton Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs On 30-01-2015, at 15:36, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: [ ... ] You seem to be disingenuous here, Dennis :-) Seems evident to me that speaking voice is AOO’s, not Apache’s. Which raises the question, how much rope does an Apache project have in attitudinal and tonal if not legal issues? Presumably, from the reaction so far witnessed, when the tone could affect business operations. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
V Piatok, 30. január 2015 o 19:52 +0100, Andrea Pescetti napísal(a): Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [ ] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) [X] Jan Iversen (jani) (non-binding) Regards, Michal Hriň - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC Chair nominations
Hi, On 30-01-2015, at 12:47, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 01/29/2015 03:56 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Reminder: the nomination deadline expires in a couple hours. See below for details. I won't start a vote immediately since Marcus is the only one who gave feedback and I want to avoid embarrassing situation if I missed a mail or the mailing list had a hiccup. So: so far I see the same two nominees we had 3 days ago, i.e., Dennis and Jan. Nobody else joined. If I missed something please let me know. If there are no changes or objections, I plan to start the vote tomorrow (Friday) morning European time. Regards, Andrea. On 26/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Just a note in a dedicated thread to say that nominations for a new PMC Chair are to be considered open for three more days, to give others (Dennis and Jan already nominated themselves) the opportunity to run. I don't remember if Louis has declinded or agreed to be again a chair candidate. So, maybe we have 3. If nominated, and then elected, sure, what the heck. :-) Louis Marcus Please consider that this comes after 26 days of discussions. So I strongly recommend that you nominate yourself or that you get explicit permission from your nominee, otherwise the risk of wasting time is high. Deadline: in 72 hours (so around 16.30 UTC on Thursday 29 January). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Louis, Summarizing on top, I didn't check the recent video from Bradley Kuhn. I think the objection is to the characterization of copy-left and conflation with the cost of compliance for commercial, closed-source software, and comparing with ALv2 in that regard. At least that is what I got in a quick scan of the legal-discuss @a.o list. On legal-discuss it was asked whether the web page was with the voice of the PMC or of an individual. I'm not sure there was a satisfactory answer. Apparently the primary concern has been addressed with the footnote. I think the concern of ASF officials is that the only constituted entity here is the Foundation. I am not certain why it is about the PMC, and it is fair to ask where AOO is of one voice. I wasn't thinking very hard about any of that. I don't think there was anything about CLAs, at least not on the legal-discuss thread. I don't follow the remark about when the tone could affect business operations. Sorry. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 13:30 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis E. Hamilton Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs On 30-01-2015, at 15:36, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: [ ... ] You seem to be disingenuous here, Dennis :-) Seems evident to me that speaking voice is AOO’s, not Apache’s. Which raises the question, how much rope does an Apache project have in attitudinal and tonal if not legal issues? Presumably, from the reaction so far witnessed, when the tone could affect business operations. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC Chair nominations
Am 01/29/2015 03:56 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Reminder: the nomination deadline expires in a couple hours. See below for details. I won't start a vote immediately since Marcus is the only one who gave feedback and I want to avoid embarrassing situation if I missed a mail or the mailing list had a hiccup. So: so far I see the same two nominees we had 3 days ago, i.e., Dennis and Jan. Nobody else joined. If I missed something please let me know. If there are no changes or objections, I plan to start the vote tomorrow (Friday) morning European time. Regards, Andrea. On 26/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Just a note in a dedicated thread to say that nominations for a new PMC Chair are to be considered open for three more days, to give others (Dennis and Jan already nominated themselves) the opportunity to run. I don't remember if Louis has declinded or agreed to be again a chair candidate. So, maybe we have 3. Marcus Please consider that this comes after 26 days of discussions. So I strongly recommend that you nominate yourself or that you get explicit permission from your nominee, otherwise the risk of wasting time is high. Deadline: in 72 hours (so around 16.30 UTC on Thursday 29 January). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
2015-01-30 19:52 GMT+01:00 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org: On 31 December 2014 I wrote to this list that I would be available to resign from the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair position as soon as a successor could be elected. A previous vote was cancelled. For this second vote we have two candidates: Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) and Jan Iversen (jani). In my capacity as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair, I will submit a resolution to the Board asking to be replaced by the most voted of the two candidates. Since candidates are not on the OpenOffice PMC, the winning candidate will automatically be elected to the OpenOffice PMC too (assuming we have the needed participation and consensus). I am not available to stay in my role. Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [+1 ] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) (binding) [ ] Jan Iversen (jani) Vote opens now and it will last one week, until 6 February 2015 7:00 PM GMT, to give all community members the opportunity to participate. The resolution will be submitted to the Board in time for the February meeting (18 February 2015). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS] [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On another thread, Pedro Giffuni observed that neither Jan nor I are on the AOO PMC. (I think technically Jan might be, even though he withdrew. I suspect he can easily return.) I have never been on the PMC, having withdrawn from participation on AOO once graduation from the Incubator arrived. Along with the concern that no candidate is currently active on the PMC, Pedro also suggested that whatever the outcome the candidates should be willing to be on the PMC. OK, for my part I am perfectly willing to be on the PMC regardless of the selection of the next AOO PMC Chair. I have no reservations about that. And however the replacement of the PMC Chair unfolds, I will continue as a committer and contributing in ways available to me. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 10:52 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair On 31 December 2014 I wrote to this list that I would be available to resign from the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair position as soon as a successor could be elected. A previous vote was cancelled. For this second vote we have two candidates: Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) and Jan Iversen (jani). [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
(re sending through the Apache relay this time ..) Hi Dennis; There is never actually such thing as the voice of the project. We have our reasons for choosing a license and it's healthful to explain it's advantages but, at least in the US, in order to give legal advice you have to be a lawyer so it's understandable that the ASF has to step and clarify that opinions are not legal advice in any form. This said, the project is sufficiently open that you do not need to ask to this list who wrote the page or who is the target audience: you can look up the commit history and you will notice that it has only been touched by ASF members (and PMC members). I would expect the PMC has consensus (even if lazy) on that. Now as a side note, and just IMHO, both candidates for AOO chair fail to fulfill what I consider a fundamental requisite for being the next PMC chair: someone wanting to be the PMC chair should already be in the PMC. According to [1] The*/Chair/*of a Project Management Committee (PMC) is appointed by the Board from thePMC Members http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members. Yes, I know the PMC can do workarounds and bring someone new to the PMC but *hey* ... people in the PMC have responsibilities: you guys shouldn't lay those on people external to the PMC that are not up to date with what is going on within the PMC *today*. I would also expect that candidates that run for PMC chair will be willing to serve in the PMC and support whomever is elected from within the PMC or else this process doesn't really make sense (again just IMHO). Pedro. [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
[VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 31 December 2014 I wrote to this list that I would be available to resign from the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair position as soon as a successor could be elected. A previous vote was cancelled. For this second vote we have two candidates: Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) and Jan Iversen (jani). In my capacity as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair, I will submit a resolution to the Board asking to be replaced by the most voted of the two candidates. Since candidates are not on the OpenOffice PMC, the winning candidate will automatically be elected to the OpenOffice PMC too (assuming we have the needed participation and consensus). I am not available to stay in my role. Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [ ] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) [ ] Jan Iversen (jani) Vote opens now and it will last one week, until 6 February 2015 7:00 PM GMT, to give all community members the opportunity to participate. The resolution will be submitted to the Board in time for the February meeting (18 February 2015). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Pedro and Jürgen, It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well. It is satisfying, it is credible to us, and it can be a mistake. Facts are more nuanced than portrayed. It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken there. There are many places where such matters can be discussed without embroiling the project. A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated software here first. I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA operates. Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement without lawsuits at https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx. My main point is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone for whom license management is a serious concern. Also, the BSA does not pursue individuals using software separate from and outside of their employment. It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution to the public interest. The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not known what the actual discussion was at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser. The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html. (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still unanswered question from the list is about whose voice this statement is made in. The footnote says it is not the voice of the ASF. It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects. The only ASF compliance concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all governing licenses. That is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors. The only advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply. And that interested parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances. - Dennis PS: Other circumstances had me learn, recently, that the reason the Chair of the PMC is an Officer of the Foundation is for important legal purposes with regard to the nature of the Foundation and the umbrella it creates for projects under its auspices. Some of the legal considerations and their honoring are viewed as extending to the PMC as well and the Chair is accountable to the Foundation for that. The PMC, in addition to its attention on the direction of the project is also governed by some legal requirements. I know that's pretty abstract, it is for me too. I expect that Chairs get on-the-job training in such matters. I surmise that the charge to operate in the public interest and within the parameters the Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is paramount. -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 To: OOo Apache Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read licenses anyways :). I honestly don't think having a compliance costs page will make a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such things through a legal process, I guess that can't do any harm. Regards, Pedro. [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Hi Dennis, On Jan 30, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Pedro and Jürgen, It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well. It is satisfying, it is credible to us, and it can be a mistake. Facts are more nuanced than portrayed. It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken there. There are many places where such matters can be discussed without embroiling the project. A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated software here first. I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA operates. Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement without lawsuits at https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx. My main point is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone for whom license management is a serious concern. Also, the BSA does not pursue individuals using software separate from and outside of their employment. It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution to the public interest. The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not known what the actual discussion was at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser. The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html. (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still unanswered question from the list is about whose voice this statement is made in. The footnote says it is not the voice of the ASF. You will find some more discussion on private@oo.a.o where you may be resubscribed to soon. It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects. The only ASF compliance concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all governing licenses. That is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors. The only advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply. And that interested parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances. Exactly - so what the project writes here is NOT ASF policy unless we want to be more general and find a way to have it be an opinion of many. - Dennis PS: Other circumstances had me learn, recently, that the reason the Chair of the PMC is an Officer of the Foundation is for important legal purposes with regard to the nature of the Foundation and the umbrella it creates for projects under its auspices. Some of the legal considerations and their honoring are viewed as extending to the PMC as well and the Chair is accountable to the Foundation for that. The PMC, in addition to its attention on the direction of the project is also governed by some legal requirements. I know that's pretty abstract, it is for me too. I expect that Chairs get on-the-job training in such matters. I surmise that the charge to operate in the public interest and within the parameters the Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is paramount. The board will lean in as needed, but better to go the other way and seek clarity. I am taking it as a sign of this project's maturity within Apache that this is a quiet discussion. Let's keep it to the frequency of one reply per person per day. If anyone wishes to propose other language for these pages then we should discuss it - slowly and carefully. I agree with Jürgen that we should be playing our game. The game is an Apache OpenOffice and an ASF game. It is neither an OpenOffice.org nor is it a TDF game. Personally I am at Apache for the permissive license, others have their reasons. That they are here is enough for me. Regards, Dave -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 To: OOo Apache Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
[X] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) Binding. On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 31 December 2014 I wrote to this list that I would be available to resign from the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair position as soon as a successor could be elected. A previous vote was cancelled. For this second vote we have two candidates: Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) and Jan Iversen (jani). In my capacity as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair, I will submit a resolution to the Board asking to be replaced by the most voted of the two candidates. Since candidates are not on the OpenOffice PMC, the winning candidate will automatically be elected to the OpenOffice PMC too (assuming we have the needed participation and consensus). I am not available to stay in my role. Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [ ] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) [ ] Jan Iversen (jani) Vote opens now and it will last one week, until 6 February 2015 7:00 PM GMT, to give all community members the opportunity to participate. The resolution will be submitted to the Board in time for the February meeting (18 February 2015). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 01/29/2015 10:19 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I didn't even know about this page, http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is. The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther. I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period. It does seem that this page would be applicable to ALL of the ASF, so in that sense it is not specific to OpenOffice, but I don't see it as harmful. IMO, there are some parts of the first section that could be removed without damaging the flow into the second section. And maybe a bit of rewording to the second section. But on balance, I think it does serve a useful purpose, whether it directly pertains to OpenOffice or not. SUGGESTION 1. Remove the page altogether. 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available. 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.) This is covered in our distribution page...http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/ Should that be linked from the page in question. 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page. 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there. This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models. Well, OK, maybe we need a better umbrellla page to cover some of these concerns in some way. Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License? ??? not sure what you think is needed in this respect. These situations arise on a regular basis by the way. We've tried to cover some of this in the distribution page and in our download page...but maybe both of these areas need more visibility. -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary of open-source
Re: PMC Chair nominations
On 30-01-2015, at 19:04, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 31/01/2015 Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 30-01-2015, at 12:47, Marcus wrote: On 26/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Just a note in a dedicated thread to say that nominations for a new PMC Chair are to be considered open for three more days, to give others (Dennis and Jan already nominated themselves) the opportunity to run. I don't remember if Louis has declinded or agreed to be again a chair candidate. I explicitly wrote that anybody who was running, besides Dennis and Jan, had 3 days (after the 26 days we had already spent in discussions) to self-nominate or be nominated by someone else who had preliminary checked the candidate's availability. I explicitly named Marcus, Rob, Kay, Juergen and Louis as people who had been nominated in the previous round. None of them, except Marcus, wrote back. I sent another reminder 24 hours to the deadline. None of them wrote back. All of them wrote to the list during those 3 days. I waited 24 hours after the deadline, in case there were e-mails stuck in moderation for whatever reason. None of them wrote back. Now the nominations phase is over and we are voting. This discussion lasted one entire month. If nominated, and then elected, sure, what the heck. :-) I take this as a joke... but, anyway, we are voting. And you take it rightly. It is a joke. I’m not running, only the two named are, and it’s too late for me, anyway, as it is for anyone else. Regards, Andrea. Cheers, Louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
Andrea Pescetti-2 wrote Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [ ] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) [ ] Jan Iversen (jani) Both excellent candidates, thank you both! but, my vote--non-binding-- is: [X] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) -- View this message in context: http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-New-Apache-OpenOffice-PMC-Chair-tp4671605p4671643.html Sent from the Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 30/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [X] Jan Iversen (jani) Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I didn't even know about this page, http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is. The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther. I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period. I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open source software and the different open source licenses. It can be seen as background information. In the context of the why page it is dos no harm and just provides some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse reading. IMHO it should not be considered unusual for an Apache project to have a page that explains why it thinks that the license that is mandatory for all Apache releases has some specific benefits over the licenses that are forbidden in all Apache releases. It would be odd if we could not make that argument. Regards, -Rob If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here. We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I hope we can and will concentrate on these important things. Juergen SUGGESTION 1. Remove the page altogether. 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available. 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.) 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page. 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there. This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models. Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License? -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 01/30/2015 10:52 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 31 December 2014 I wrote to this list that I would be available to resign from the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair position as soon as a successor could be elected. A previous vote was cancelled. For this second vote we have two candidates: Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) and Jan Iversen (jani). In my capacity as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair, I will submit a resolution to the Board asking to be replaced by the most voted of the two candidates. Since candidates are not on the OpenOffice PMC, the winning candidate will automatically be elected to the OpenOffice PMC too (assuming we have the needed participation and consensus). I am not available to stay in my role. Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [ X] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) Binding. [ ] Jan Iversen (jani) Vote opens now and it will last one week, until 6 February 2015 7:00 PM GMT, to give all community members the opportunity to participate. The resolution will be submitted to the Board in time for the February meeting (18 February 2015). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK An old horse for a long, hard road, a young pony for a quick ride. -- Texas Bix Bender - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC Chair nominations
Am 01/29/2015 03:56 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Reminder: the nomination deadline expires in a couple hours. See below for details. I won't start a vote immediately since Marcus is the only one who gave feedback and I want to avoid embarrassing situation if I missed a mail or the mailing list had a hiccup. So: so far I see the same two nominees we had 3 days ago, i.e., Dennis and Jan. Nobody else joined. If I missed something please let me know. If there are no changes or objections, I plan to start the vote tomorrow (Friday) morning European time. Regards, Andrea. On 26/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Just a note in a dedicated thread to say that nominations for a new PMC Chair are to be considered open for three more days, to give others (Dennis and Jan already nominated themselves) the opportunity to run. I don't remember if Louis has declinded or agreed to be again a chair candidate. So, maybe we have 3. Marcus Please consider that this comes after 26 days of discussions. So I strongly recommend that you nominate yourself or that you get explicit permission from your nominee, otherwise the risk of wasting time is high. Deadline: in 72 hours (so around 16.30 UTC on Thursday 29 January). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Am 01/30/2015 01:32 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I didn't even know about this page,http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is. The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther. I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period. I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open source software and the different open source licenses. It can be seen as background information. In the context of the why page it is dos no harm and just provides some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse reading. If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here. We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I hope we can and will concentrate on these important things. +1 AFAIK only one person has mentioned this and only indirectly by useing some words as quote. Since when is this webpage online? SVN tells us Dev 2012. But I haven't looked since when which text parts are online. Now we have one feedback of just a little part of the webpage. It's just another try to go for a fight of license variantes. Keep the text as it is, remove typos or adjust the wording if someone get offended personally. But I don't see the need to change the text because someone don't like it. Or remove the webpage entirely which would in IMHO b*shit. My 2 ct. Marcus SUGGESTION 1. Remove the page altogether. 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available. 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.) 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page. 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there. This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models. Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License? -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of
Re: PMC Chair nominations
On 31/01/2015 Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 30-01-2015, at 12:47, Marcus wrote: On 26/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Just a note in a dedicated thread to say that nominations for a new PMC Chair are to be considered open for three more days, to give others (Dennis and Jan already nominated themselves) the opportunity to run. I don't remember if Louis has declinded or agreed to be again a chair candidate. I explicitly wrote that anybody who was running, besides Dennis and Jan, had 3 days (after the 26 days we had already spent in discussions) to self-nominate or be nominated by someone else who had preliminary checked the candidate's availability. I explicitly named Marcus, Rob, Kay, Juergen and Louis as people who had been nominated in the previous round. None of them, except Marcus, wrote back. I sent another reminder 24 hours to the deadline. None of them wrote back. All of them wrote to the list during those 3 days. I waited 24 hours after the deadline, in case there were e-mails stuck in moderation for whatever reason. None of them wrote back. Now the nominations phase is over and we are voting. This discussion lasted one entire month. If nominated, and then elected, sure, what the heck. :-) I take this as a joke... but, anyway, we are voting. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: On another thread, Pedro Giffuni observed that neither Jan nor I are on the AOO PMC. This was already noted in my vote mail and in previous discussions. The winning candidate will be admitted to the PMC (there are minimum requirements but I'm sure we can meet them). While I see it likely that the other one gets an invitation too, we are currently voting for the PMC Chair and for nothing else. Since the process has now been ongoing for one month, everybody who had concerns had the time to voice them. We are now voting. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
Am 01/30/2015 07:52 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [ ] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) [X] Jan Iversen (jani) Binding Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
English Dictionaries updated - 2015-02-01
Hello! I have just updated the English Dictionaries: http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/english-dictionaries-apache-openoffice In some countries it is already the 1st of February, so I have decided to release it with that date (since all was ready already). Changes: - en_CA (Canadian) (updated: 2015-01-28) - en_GB (British) (updated: 2015-02-01) * - en_US (American) (updated: 2015-01-28) * en_GB has 1559 new words. en_GB now has over 10'000 words since I embraced the project around a year ago. I was able to add to it 1559 words in January because I was home on vacation from one of my jobs. Thanks! Kind regards, Marco A.G.Pinto -- --
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 31/01/15 02:52, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [ X] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) (binding) [ ] Jan Iversen (jani) Vote opens now and it will last one week, until 6 February 2015 7:00 PM GMT, to give all community members the opportunity to participate. The resolution will be submitted to the Board in time for the February meeting (18 February 2015). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: I didn't even know about this page, http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is. It is useful to those who have an interest and concern about license compliance. That's the point, to have a keyword-rich page that places well in search results for those potential users who are concerned specifically with compliance risk. intended purpose. Note: This is how all the why pages are structured. They are single topic pages that delve into a specific reason why someone might be interested in OpenOffice. So even if they have no idea that OpenOffice exists, they will find this page when they search for a related concern, e.g., ODF, End of Life of Office 2003, free software for new computers, and, yes, cost of compliance. You, or anyone else might not care about cost of compliance, or for that matter, End Of Life of Office 2003. That's fine. This page is not intended for you. The way to evaluate it is from the perspective of someone who is researching this topic, the person for whom this is a topic of interest. This is an important SEO technique, to make it possible for those who don't even know that OpenOffice exists, but who have a problem that we solve, to find our website. The fact that these are genuine, real-world concerns can be seen from their coverage in the New York Times and in industry press: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/business/26ping.html?_r=2; http://www.industryweek.com/software-amp-systems/cost-open-source-licensing-compliance The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther. Similarly, the ASF does not have a position on public sector procurement, upgrades to Office 2003 or what file format someone should use. On none of these questions does the ASF have an official stance. However, these are issues that are of interest to many, and for which AOO has a good answer, so it is appropriate to have pages that explain why someone with these concerns might prefer AOO. Finally, note that we do not place these why pages prominently in our blog or the front page of the website. The main intent is to to be found by someone searching for keywords related to these topics. It is not intended as as trollbait for the FSF. Regards, -Rob I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period. SUGGESTION 1. Remove the page altogether. 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available. 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.) 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page. 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there. This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models. Otherwise, wouldn't
Re: Formation Open Office
It is pretty hard to find it since most of the trainning is done now either for private companies or at universities and such. I would suggest visiting a local linux groups which surely have OpenOffice/LibreOffice experience. That said if there are specific questions you can always visit our forum. https://forum.openoffice.org/en On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Claudia Leduc clo.le...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm looking of an Open Office training class for a friend. She would like a training within a group with a teacher in Montreal (not online nor video). Do you know if such thing exist or where I could look for this? Thanks a lot in advance, Claudia Leduc http://about.me/claudialeduc -- -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
I had expressed concernonly to highlight it. I agree others had the chance to express concern. PMC could have started a vote. Lazy consensus rules. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: On another thread, Pedro Giffuni observed that neither Jan nor I are on the AOO PMC. This was already noted in my vote mail and in previous discussions. The winning candidate will be admitted to the PMC (there are minimum requirements but I'm sure we can meet them). While I see it likely that the other one gets an invitation too, we are currently voting for the PMC Chair and for nothing else. Since the process has now been ongoing for one month, everybody who had concerns had the time to voice them. We are now voting. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Pedro and Jürgen, It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons. There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well. It is satisfying, it is credible to us, and it can be a mistake. Facts are more nuanced than portrayed. It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken there. There are many places where such matters can be discussed without embroiling the project. The page boils down to saying the following: 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 3) There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle path and avoid much of this risk. The Apache License is one example. 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further into using OpenOffice. I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us to say. Regards, -Rob A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated software here first. I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA operates. Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement without lawsuits at https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx. My main point is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone for whom license management is a serious concern. Also, the BSA does not pursue individuals using software separate from and outside of their employment. It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost. Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate successfully, though. That's something where we have an opportunity to act as a contribution to the public interest. The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF. I had not known what the actual discussion was at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser. The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html. (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.) A still unanswered question from the list is about whose voice this statement is made in. The footnote says it is not the voice of the ASF. It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects. The only ASF compliance concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all governing licenses. That is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors. The only advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply. And that interested parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances. - Dennis PS: Other circumstances had me learn, recently, that the reason the Chair of the PMC is an Officer of the Foundation is for important legal purposes with regard to the nature of the Foundation and the umbrella it creates for projects under its auspices. Some of the legal considerations and their honoring are viewed as extending to the PMC as well and the Chair is accountable to the Foundation for that. The PMC, in addition to its attention on the direction of the project is also governed by some legal requirements. I know that's pretty abstract, it is for me too. I expect that Chairs get on-the-job training in such matters. I surmise that the charge to operate in the public interest and within the parameters the Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is paramount. -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 To: OOo Apache Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs [ ... ] I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read licenses anyways :). I honestly don't think having a compliance costs page will make a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such things
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
Am 01/30/2015 01:32 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I didn't even know about this page,http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is. The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther. I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period. I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open source software and the different open source licenses. It can be seen as background information. In the context of the why page it is dos no harm and just provides some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse reading. If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here. We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I hope we can and will concentrate on these important things. +1 AFAIK only one person has mentioned this and only indirectly by useing some words as quote. Since when is this webpage online? SVN tells us Dev 2012. But I haven't looked since when which text parts are online. Now we have one feedback of just a little part of the webpage. It's just another try to go for a fight of license variantes. Keep the text as it is, remove typos or adjust the wording if someone get offended personally. But I don't see the need to change the text because someone don't like it. Or remove the webpage entirely which would in IMHO b*shit. My 2 ct. Marcus SUGGESTION 1. Remove the page altogether. 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available. 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.) 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page. 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there. This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models. Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License? -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of
Formation Open Office
Hi, I'm looking of an Open Office training class for a friend. She would like a training within a group with a teacher in Montreal (not online nor video). Do you know if such thing exist or where I could look for this? Thanks a lot in advance, Claudia Leduc http://about.me/claudialeduc --
Re: Open office Calc crashing
Dear Sir, Probably one time I get crash a day. Today also I got the same case. I will let you know more on coming Monday Did not see any error, but I saw some in Even Viewer, it says some config delay, sure I shall get you on Monday... Sincerely Binny On 1/29/2015 10:05 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Please provide more information about your experience with Calc crashing. 0. Had Help worked previously in your installation and use of Calc, or is this the first time you employed help with 4.0.1 while in Calc? 1. Can you upgrade to Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 and confirm that the same problem occurs with this latest version? Please use http://openoffice.org/download for the latest version and do not select any other choices after requesting the 4.1.1 download. Wait for it to commence. 2. What language do you use for the download choice? 3. Do you install any additional language selections? What are they? 4. When you start OpenOffice and do not select an application, what does Tools - Options - Language Settings - Languages have for Language of User Interface and Language of Local settings? 5. Under Tools - Options - OpenOffice - General, is Help Agent checked? For Help formatting, is the selection Default or something else. 6. Is special accessibility software being used on your computer? 7. Without opening Calc, just with OpenOffice started, does the menu Help - OpenOffice Help F1 open or does it crash. If it crashes, how does it crash? Are there any messages? Any additional details of this kind will help us to isolate the conditions under which your problem has occurred. Otherwise, other uses here may simply report that it works for them and the problem cannot be reproduced. - Dennis PS: You have reached a public mailing list on which volunteers contribute to questions from other users like themselves. For any follow-up, please reply to us...@openoffice.apache.org where expert users can offer further advice and others can learn the solutions to problems. Advisors on this list do not promise to respond to questions sent directly to their email addresses. Pleas subscribe to us...@openoffice.apache.org to observe questions and solutions posted to the list and not to you. The OpenOffice Forums have an extensive knowledge base at https://forum.openoffice.org/ that you can browse through as well. -Original Message- From: Binny James [mailto:binny.ja...@firmusoft.co.in] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 01:00 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; pr...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Open office Calc crashing Dear Sir, I am facing an issue in CALC, open the existing CALC application, edit and press F1 key. Here it crashes. Using Open office 4.0.1 My OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Expecting reply... Regards Binny - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I didn't even know about this page, http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is. The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther. I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period. I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open source software and the different open source licenses. It can be seen as background information. In the context of the why page it is dos no harm and just provides some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse reading. If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here. We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I hope we can and will concentrate on these important things. Juergen SUGGESTION 1. Remove the page altogether. 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available. 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.) 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page. 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there. This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models. Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License? -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary of open-source goodness. - To
