Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[Jonathan Aquilina]

Not sure if this will help http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html

but that site allows one to read the licenses in more detail.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:

>
> I dropped an important word:
>
> "I have *no* quarrel with others who want their code to be handled
> differently."
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 20:54
> To: 'webmaster-Kracked_P_P'; discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
>
> I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is
> more important.
>
> With regard to technicalities:
>
> It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code
> bases.  Period.  That's the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including
> Apache OpenOffice.
>
> On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the
> Free Software Foundation, and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice
> to incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code without consequence.  It is
> necessary to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that is
> derived from ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation.
>  (It is similar to employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.)
>
> I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological
> positions on where they are willing to contribute.
>
> I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for
> Apache committers.  It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me
> can do essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are
> assured that I can't revoke that grant.  I still have all of my rights to
> what I contribute.  That's where I stand with regard to licensing.  I have
> quarrel with others who want their code to be handled differently.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
>
>
> You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of
> what is the differences between them.  That said, it still is all about
> what the developer feels is a better license for their coding.  What I
> have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding
> under one type of licensing over another.  If they do not like the
> "default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute
> their coding to that project.
>
> The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO
> project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a
> more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted?  Can
> software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still
> gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other
> version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership"
> and no longer available for an open source project?
>
> On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.
> >
> > Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions
> does not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as
> use by individuals in their business or institutional activities.
> >
> >   - Dennis
> >
> > PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply
> Apache License.
> >
> > DETAILS
> >
> > Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF
> a perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is
> no transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was
> the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of
> ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)
> >
> > You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA)
> is here:
> > .
> >
> > The key statement is this:
> >
> > "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
> >  and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
> >  You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
> >  Your Contributions."
> >
> > Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their
> own (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.
>  It is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.
> >
> > This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that
> LibreOffice committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific
> licenses (and say nothing about patents).
> >
> > The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is
> not a reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be
> provided in source code and under the same license.  The 

RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I dropped an important word:

"I have *no* quarrel with others who want their code to be handled differently."

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 20:54
To: 'webmaster-Kracked_P_P'; discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is more 
important.

With regard to technicalities:

It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code bases. 
 Period.  That's the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including Apache 
OpenOffice.

On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the Free 
Software Foundation, and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice to 
incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code without consequence.  It is necessary 
to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that is derived from 
ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation.  (It is similar to 
employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.)

I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological positions on 
where they are willing to contribute.

I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for Apache 
committers.  It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me can do 
essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are assured that I 
can't revoke that grant.  I still have all of my rights to what I contribute.  
That's where I stand with regard to licensing.  I have quarrel with others who 
want their code to be handled differently.

 - Dennis   



-Original Message-
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences


You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of 
what is the differences between them.  That said, it still is all about 
what the developer feels is a better license for their coding.  What I 
have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding 
under one type of licensing over another.  If they do not like the 
"default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute 
their coding to that project.

The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO 
project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a 
more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted?  Can 
software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still 
gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other 
version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership" 
and no longer available for an open source project?

On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.
>
> Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not 
> raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by 
> individuals in their business or institutional activities.
>
>   - Dennis
>
> PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache 
> License.
>
> DETAILS
>
> Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a 
> perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is no 
> transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was the 
> case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of 
> ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)
>
> You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is 
> here:
> .
>
> The key statement is this:
>
> "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
>  and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
>  You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
>  Your Contributions."
>
> Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own 
> (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It 
> is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.
>
> This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice 
> committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and 
> say nothing about patents).
>
> The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a 
> reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be provided in 
> source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no limitations on 
> the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside 
> of a [commercial] distributed service.
>
> The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does have 
> ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to express 
> 

RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is more 
important.

With regard to technicalities:

It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code bases. 
 Period.  That's the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including Apache 
OpenOffice.

On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the Free 
Software Foundation, and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice to 
incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code without consequence.  It is necessary 
to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that is derived from 
ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation.  (It is similar to 
employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.)

I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological positions on 
where they are willing to contribute.

I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for Apache 
committers.  It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me can do 
essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are assured that I 
can't revoke that grant.  I still have all of my rights to what I contribute.  
That's where I stand with regard to licensing.  I have quarrel with others who 
want their code to be handled differently.

 - Dennis   



-Original Message-
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences


You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of 
what is the differences between them.  That said, it still is all about 
what the developer feels is a better license for their coding.  What I 
have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding 
under one type of licensing over another.  If they do not like the 
"default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute 
their coding to that project.

The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO 
project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a 
more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted?  Can 
software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still 
gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other 
version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership" 
and no longer available for an open source project?

On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.
>
> Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not 
> raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by 
> individuals in their business or institutional activities.
>
>   - Dennis
>
> PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache 
> License.
>
> DETAILS
>
> Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a 
> perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is no 
> transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was the 
> case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of 
> ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)
>
> You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is 
> here:
> .
>
> The key statement is this:
>
> "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
>  and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
>  You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
>  Your Contributions."
>
> Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own 
> (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It 
> is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.
>
> This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice 
> committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and 
> say nothing about patents).
>
> The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a 
> reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be provided in 
> source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no limitations on 
> the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside 
> of a [commercial] distributed service.
>
> The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does have 
> ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to express 
> their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such allegiance, 
> it is valuable to stick to the facts.
>
>   - Dennis
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs A

Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[webmaster-Kracked_P_P]

You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of 
what is the differences between them.  That said, it still is all about 
what the developer feels is a better license for their coding.  What I 
have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding 
under one type of licensing over another.  If they do not like the 
"default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute 
their coding to that project.


The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO 
project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a 
more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted?  Can 
software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still 
gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other 
version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership" 
and no longer available for an open source project?


On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.

Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not 
raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by 
individuals in their business or institutional activities.

  - Dennis

PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache 
License.

DETAILS

Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a 
perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is no 
transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was the case 
that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of ownership, 
as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)

You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is 
here:
.

The key statement is this:

"Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
 and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
 You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
 Your Contributions."

Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own (and 
derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It is 
contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.

This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice 
committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and say 
nothing about patents).

The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a 
reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be provided in 
source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no limitations on 
the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside of 
a [commercial] distributed service.

The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does have 
ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to express 
their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such allegiance, it 
is valuable to stick to the facts.

  - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[ ... ]
As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding
they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that
project the ownership of the coding.  Whether or not the "wording" is
stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have
told me.

[ ... ]





--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[Immanuel Giulea]

I understand that differences between licences are technical and seem
trivial to end-users.

So if not the licences, how is LO different from AOO? In terms that
end-users can understand.

Immanuel
On Dec 31, 2012 8:29 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" 
wrote:

> That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.
>
> Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does
> not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by
> individuals in their business or institutional activities.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache
> License.
>
> DETAILS
>
> Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a
> perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is
> no transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was
> the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of
> ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)
>
> You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA)
> is here:
> .
>
> The key statement is this:
>
>"Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
> and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
> You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
> Your Contributions."
>
> Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own
> (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It
> is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.
>
> This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that
> LibreOffice committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific
> licenses (and say nothing about patents).
>
> The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is
> not a reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be
> provided in source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no
> limitations on the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded
> system or inside of a [commercial] distributed service.
>
> The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does
> have ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to
> express their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such
> allegiance, it is valuable to stick to the facts.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
>
> [ ... ]
> >
>
> As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding
> they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that
> project the ownership of the coding.  Whether or not the "wording" is
> stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have
> told me.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> 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
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it. 

Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not 
raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by 
individuals in their business or institutional activities.

 - Dennis

PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache 
License. 

DETAILS

Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a 
perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is no 
transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was the case 
that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of ownership, 
as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)  

You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is 
here: 
.

The key statement is this: 

   "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, 
You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to 
Your Contributions."

Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own (and 
derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It is 
contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.

This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice 
committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and say 
nothing about patents).

The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a 
reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be provided in 
source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no limitations on 
the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside of 
a [commercial] distributed service. 

The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does have 
ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to express 
their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such allegiance, it 
is valuable to stick to the facts.

 - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[ ... ]
>

As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding 
they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that 
project the ownership of the coding.  Whether or not the "wording" is 
stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have 
told me.

[ ... ]


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

[tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and OpenERP

[Immanuel Giulea]

Hello all,

I got in touch with Fabrice Henrion (Director of Business Development
Americas at OpenERP) via LinkedIn, and here was his response to two points
the mailing list raised previously

1- Intentions to have an integration with LibreOffice?

> We don't intend to work on a LibreOffice integration because we will
> prefer to invest in a new report engine that will be more usable, more
> integrated, allows drill-down, is embedded in the interface, etc...
> However, I have read in the past certain people were able to get
> LibreOffice to work with OpenERP 6; I didn't try it myself.

2- How to connect OpenERP with LibreOffice in v7?

> You should install the module base_report_designer and follow the steps
> explained during the installation.




Immanuel

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[webmaster-Kracked_P_P]

On 12/31/2012 02:40 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:

Hello all,

In the marketing materials that I am writing covering LO vs AOO, I was
wondering if it would be relevant to go into an explanation about why the
GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a "true open source".

I found this great document that explains the three "most common" licences:
ASL, GPL and LGPL (MPL is not included) (1, 2)

Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the information
and apply it on the materials?


Cheers and Happy New Year

Immanuel

(1)
http://www.openlogic.com/Portals/172122/docs/understanding-the-three-most-common-open-source-licenses.pdf
(2) http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/10518967



As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding 
they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that 
project the ownership of the coding.  Whether or not the "wording" is 
stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have 
told me.


I really thing the whole thing comes down to the fact that the was LO 
does its licensing is better for the individual developers, or so I have 
been told.  If the people who are developing the project feels that one 
type of licensing is better for them and their work than another one, 
then they may avoid a project that does not have their preferred licenses.


I no longer write programs for a living, but did back in the mainframe 
and early PC days.  I wrote a lot of packages for others, but for those 
things I wrote for myself for my PCs, I wanted to make sure, in the end, 
I owned what I wrote and no one could claim ownership over it.




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

[tdf-discuss] Re: Marketing material suggestion: Why LibreOffice?

[NoOp]

On 12/29/2012 07:30 AM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Microsoft put out a three-page document that hits on some of the weaknesses
> of LO (and bundles LO with OOo):
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/D/0/D/D0DA0C4B-22DE-40C7-A84D-0C7E03347A9C/Considering-LibreOffice-and-OO-v2.pdf
> 
> Is there some materials that can explain the strong points of LO and offer
> counter-arguments to what MS says ?
> 
> Some of the key points would be:
> - lack of calendaring/email
> - collaboration tools
> - pivot tables
...

Perhaps if they would have used LO to produce the PDF instead of MS Word
2010, their copyright statement wouldn't have gotten chopped off:


© 2012 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. This
document is for informational purposes only. MICROSOFT
MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN THIS




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

[tdf-discuss] Targeting LO4 at MSO 2003 users

[Immanuel Giulea]

Hello all,

With only six weeks before the release, I was wondering if there was a
marketing plan/strategy in place (or to be discussed at the Jan. marketing
call) for targeting current MSO 2003 users with WinXP and Vista.

Cheers,

Immanuel

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

[tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[Immanuel Giulea]

Hello all,

In the marketing materials that I am writing covering LO vs AOO, I was
wondering if it would be relevant to go into an explanation about why the
GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a "true open source".

I found this great document that explains the three "most common" licences:
ASL, GPL and LGPL (MPL is not included) (1, 2)

Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the information
and apply it on the materials?


Cheers and Happy New Year

Immanuel

(1)
http://www.openlogic.com/Portals/172122/docs/understanding-the-three-most-common-open-source-licenses.pdf
(2) http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/10518967

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

[tdf-discuss] LO4 and CMIS integration

[Immanuel Giulea]

Thanks for the link Dennis, great start.
I digged further into it and found that CMIS v1.1 was recently released (0).

I also found that there was a presentation about LO/CMIS during LibOCon2012
(1)(2)

And there's a good explanation with screenshots for integration with
Alfresco (3)

So far, what has been do is (4):

>   * Universal Content Provider for CMIS is almost complete
>   * The internal file picker can allow pickup up CMIS files and folders.


Another good summary is here (5):

> What works now:
>
>- Connection to a CMIS server using the internal file picker
>
>
>- Navigating in the CMIS server using the file picker like on a local
>file system
>
>
>- Open, Save and Save As files on a CMIS server
>
> Even if this work has already nicely progressed it is still not ready for
> end users and is thus enabled only with experimental features in
> LibreOffice 3.6. Among the main problems:
>
>- Getting the repository id to paste in the CMIS new place dialog is
>not obvious. This is already fixed in the master branch and will be
>available for 3.7
>
>
>- Check-in, Check-out and Cancel Check-out still need to be integrated
>somehow in the UI in order to handle all cases. For example, saving on a
>non-checked out document in SharePoint is not permitted.
>
>
>- Add WebService binding support as this would ease the SharePoint
>connection configuration to the user
>
>
>- Get NTLM authentication to work with the curl and libcmis built with
>LibreOffice. This is already partly fixed in master branch.
>
> and an older summary from 2011 (6)

Also found something on Gitorious (7)

One more reference for discussion, from the June 2012 mailing list archive
(8)

(0) http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.1/cs01/CMIS-v1.1-cs01.html
(1)
http://conference.libreoffice.org/program/thursday-secondary-track/cmis-update
(2)
http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr/wordpress/wp-content/upload/libreoffice/loconf-2012-cmis-update.odp
(3)
http://blogs.alfresco.com/wp/wabson/2012/11/01/cmis-support-in-libreoffice-experimental-features/
(4)
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.devel/31277
(5) http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr/wordpress/?p=869
(6)
http://www.mail-archive.com/libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org/msg12644.html
(7) http://gitorious.org/libreoffice-cmis
(8) http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Alfresco-CMIS-access-td3990050.html

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> Is it CMIS that is being asked about?
>
> There is more information here:
> .
>
>  - Dennis
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] new years wishes

[Charles-H. Schulz]

Cor, all,

Happy New Year!

Best,

Charles.


Cor Nouws  a écrit :

>Wishing you all the best for 2013: love, joy, happiness, inspiration
>for 
>your work and fun in building and sharing good things in life.
>
>Cor
>
>-- 
>  - Cor
>  - http://nl.libreoffice.org
>  - www.librelex.org
>
>
>-- 
>Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
>Problems?
>http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>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

-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone avec Kaiten Mail. Excusez la brièveté.
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: [tdf-discuss] Marketing material suggestion: Why LibreOffice?

[Charles-H. Schulz]

Dennis,

Yes indeed.

Charles.


"Dennis E. Hamilton"  a écrit :

>[Resent using the list-known correct e-mail address]
>
>Is it CMIS that is being asked about?  
>
>There is more information here: 
>.
>
> - Dennis
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Immanuel Giulea [mailto:giulea.imman...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 13:21
>To: Cor Nouws
>Cc: Boudi van Vlijmen; Marketing; market...@us.libreoffice.org;
>discuss@documentfoundation.org
>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: [tdf-discuss] Marketing
>material suggestion: Why LibreOffice?
>
>>From the 4.0 Release Notes, I understand that LO is aiming to
>compatible
>with CIMS protocol.
>I'll try to take a deeper look at this.
>Don't know enough about the CIMS protocol right now.
>
>
>On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Cor Nouws  wrote:
>
>> Hi Immanuel,
>>
>> Thanks for your initiative and input for this!
>>
>> Immanuel Giulea wrote (29-12-12 22:04)
>>
>>
>>  What are the plans on CIMS for LO 4.0 ?
>>>
>>
>>
>https://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/**ReleaseNotes/4.0#Core
>>
>> I've some documentation from some years back. Will try next weeks
>> (overloaded, sorry) to see what is up to date and then send it here.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  - Cor
>>  - http://nl.libreoffice.org
>>  - www.librelex.org
>>
>>
>
>-- 
>Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
>Problems?
>http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>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
>
>
>-- 
>Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
>Problems?
>http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>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

-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone avec Kaiten Mail. Excusez la brièveté.
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: [tdf-discuss] Marketing material suggestion: Why LibreOffice?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

[Resent using the list-known correct e-mail address]

Is it CMIS that is being asked about?  

There is more information here: 
.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Immanuel Giulea [mailto:giulea.imman...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 13:21
To: Cor Nouws
Cc: Boudi van Vlijmen; Marketing; market...@us.libreoffice.org; 
discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: [tdf-discuss] Marketing material 
suggestion: Why LibreOffice?

>From the 4.0 Release Notes, I understand that LO is aiming to compatible
with CIMS protocol.
I'll try to take a deeper look at this.
Don't know enough about the CIMS protocol right now.


On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Cor Nouws  wrote:

> Hi Immanuel,
>
> Thanks for your initiative and input for this!
>
> Immanuel Giulea wrote (29-12-12 22:04)
>
>
>  What are the plans on CIMS for LO 4.0 ?
>>
>
> https://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/**ReleaseNotes/4.0#Core
>
> I've some documentation from some years back. Will try next weeks
> (overloaded, sorry) to see what is up to date and then send it here.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> --
>  - Cor
>  - http://nl.libreoffice.org
>  - www.librelex.org
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] new years wishes

[Jonathan Aquilina]

I would love to echo those wishes in return to the entire community :) as
well as yourself Cor :)

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Cor Nouws  wrote:

> Wishing you all the best for 2013: love, joy, happiness, inspiration for
> your work and fun in building and sharing good things in life.
>
> Cor
>
> --
>  - Cor
>  - http://nl.libreoffice.org
>  - www.librelex.org
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
> discuss+help@**documentfoundation.org
> Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/**get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-**
> unsubscribe/
> 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
>
>


-- 
Jonathan Aquilina

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

[tdf-discuss] new years wishes

[Cor Nouws]

Wishing you all the best for 2013: love, joy, happiness, inspiration for 
your work and fun in building and sharing good things in life.


Cor

--
 - Cor
 - http://nl.libreoffice.org
 - www.librelex.org


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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