Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept .. As the trees diverge, it will get harder to give code to you both. What if some changes depend on other GPL code? Your insistence on ... LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of your software. Great! Don't worry about that. We celebrate that. The folks here at apache tend to like to code - and if others use it - build amazing things with it - so much the better. We're happy to see our children travel the world - and do not insist that they call home every night. Seriously. Dw. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org wrote: On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote: ... LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of your software. Great! Don't worry about that. We celebrate that. The folks here at apache tend to like to code - and if others use it - build amazing things with it - so much the better. +1000 Can I ask if the above statement regarding reuse is a consensus position or an individual opinion. Ross
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP server. It is official: Keith is a troll. We always have. Do not feed. Sorry for anything off-topic, etc. It was my first / only day on this list. The situation is frustrating and I saw a lot of stuff I disagreed with or was amazed by. I believe I have made all of my points already. Keith, your posts had a very troll-like aspect to them... apologies if your questions really were honest. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote: Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org wrote: On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote: ... LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of your software. Great! Don't worry about that. We celebrate that. The folks here at apache tend to like to code - and if others use it - build amazing things with it - so much the better. +1000 Can I ask if the above statement regarding reuse is a consensus position or an individual opinion. It's really just a matter of fact, Ross. The code is spaghetti of the first order, and unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the context of actual shared repositories. S.
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Simon Phipps wrote: unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the context of actual shared repositories. That sounds like a fine scenario. The ASF is good at providing Open Source to be reused downstream. And hopefully (from my perspective, at least) there will be refactoring, or even rearchitecting/rewriting, to enable OOo to better participate in the mobile/cloud arena, with that forming the basis for downstream builds. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the context of actual shared repositories. That sounds like a fine scenario. The ASF is good at providing Open Source to be reused downstream. And hopefully (from my perspective, at least) there will be refactoring, or even rearchitecting/rewriting, to enable OOo to better participate in the mobile/cloud arena, with that forming the basis for downstream builds. I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome would be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial push-back from some quarters. I saw pushback from multiple sides. From what I can see, that push-back still exists. Reminding people of this is not going to help. S. - Sam Ruby A good leader takes a little more than his share of the blame, a little less than his share of the credit. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the context of actual shared repositories. That sounds like a fine scenario. The ASF is good at providing Open Source to be reused downstream. And hopefully (from my perspective, at least) there will be refactoring, or even rearchitecting/rewriting, to enable OOo to better participate in the mobile/cloud arena, with that forming the basis for downstream builds. I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome would be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial push-back from some quarters. I saw pushback from multiple sides. From what I can see, that push-back still exists. Reminding people of this is not going to help. Reminding people of what, Sam? As far as I can see the resulting consensus text is still there in the proposal. Are you proposing that it should be removed? S.
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Simon Phipps wrote: I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome would be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial push-back from some quarters. So let's address the push-back. The proposal, as I understand it, is for OpenOffice to exist at the ASF. Push-back that it should move to TDF is just a non-starter, as far as I can see, for those interested in doing OpenOffice under a permissive license. The licensing issue does not go away, so let's move on with the assumption that OpenOffice will happen here. Once we establish that predicate, the question is what happens with collaboration. You and I agree that core development would happen at the ASF. TDF would be a downstream consumer of the core code, and able to incorporate incompatibly licensed code into its unique distribution. Everyone, IBMer, TDFer, and other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under our license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under their own license. From that perspective, TDF and IBM are equal players, each with their own enhancements: one set LGPL/MPL, the other closed source. Let us not conflate trademark issues with collaboration on the code. That just defocuses attention from the necessary issues, IMO. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome would be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial push-back from some quarters. So let's address the push-back. That is not the only push-back, and my suggestion is that we not focus on the differences we have. Let's instead focus on how we can maximize the areas we have in common. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Sam Ruby wrote: my suggestion is that we not focus on the differences we have. Let's instead focus on how we can maximize the areas we have in common. Isn't that what: Core development would happen at the ASF. Everyone: IBMer, TDFer, and other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under our license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under their own license. From that perspective, TDF and IBM would be equal players, each with their own enhancements. does? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: my suggestion is that we not focus on the differences we have. Let's instead focus on how we can maximize the areas we have in common. Isn't that what: Core development would happen at the ASF. Everyone: IBMer, TDFer, and other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under our license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under their own license. From that perspective, TDF and IBM would be equal players, each with their own enhancements. does? That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up. At the present time, there are people who would rather not participate in such an arrangement. They have something that works just fine for them. Many are skeptical that we can deliver. The most that we can do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b) execute. If we do both well, we will achieve much more than we could by prior agreement. I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't yet have a track record or anything new to offer. And that in such a context it is rather presumptuous at this point for us proclaim that we are the core or even are relevant. --- Noel - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 04:26:15PM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up. At the present time, there are people who would rather not participate in such an arrangement. They have something that works just fine for them. Many are skeptical that we can deliver. The most that we can do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b) execute. If we do both well, we will achieve much more than we could by prior agreement. I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't yet have a track record or anything new to offer. And that in such a context it is rather presumptuous at this point for us proclaim that we are the core or even are relevant. +1 Beautifully put, Sam. That is exactly how I read the TDF situation, as well, based on interactions both here and on the documentfoundation.org lists. They have worked hard, and they are deservedly proud of what they've achieved. I'm glad you've taken a lead role in these outreach efforts. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote on 06/07/2011 03:49:12 PM: From: Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: 06/07/2011 03:49 PM Subject: RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice Simon Phipps wrote: I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome would be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial push-back from some quarters. So let's address the push-back. The proposal, as I understand it, is for OpenOffice to exist at the ASF. Push-back that it should move to TDF is just a non-starter, as far as I can see, for those interested in doing OpenOffice under a permissive license. The licensing issue does not go away, so let's move on with the assumption that OpenOffice will happen here. Once we establish that predicate, the question is what happens with collaboration. You and I agree that core development would happen at the ASF. TDF would be a downstream consumer of the core code, and able to incorporate incompatibly licensed code into its unique distribution. Everyone, IBMer, TDFer, and other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under our license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under their own license. From that perspective, TDF and IBM are equal players, each with their own enhancements: one set LGPL/MPL, the other closed source. Let us not conflate trademark issues with collaboration on the code. That just defocuses attention from the necessary issues, IMO. --- Noel +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
I was against this experiment since my first mail but I've reading and learning a number of important facts since. So I thought I would summarize the no vote reasons so I can disconnect and return to my own big tasks ;-) If you've made up your mind, plz delete as I don't want to waste any more of your time. I read a lot and gained respect for Apache the foundation and OO the brand. There is love people attach to that trademark and to Apache as well. Apache could offer shit on a stick and it would have downloads and people curious about how to contribute back. Many of us want all of these good ideas and energies to be channeled. The LibreOffice team is not a raging success yet and they've just climbed some big hills alone. A drastic change to the plan today costs merely 100 of thousands of dollars. In absence of that, given all I have read and that the no major alterations have been offered, this is my (unfinished) list for the arguments against: --- This is basically a code dump, not the set of 50(?) FTEs who know and have created / been maintaining this code. OpenOffice is now primarily a brand to be preserved. This brand is in jeopardy now. Copyleft is compelling to small LO contributors. Do you really want to write AL2 so that IBM can sell it? This AL2 is not within the spirit of the tradition of this codebase because it is invoking a proprietary clause. AL2 will make ongoing code sharing with LO impossible. This proposal is considered to have a practical license agreement, but grabbing code changes from LibreOffice is said to be impractical. This is not seen as a problem. The move from Java towards Python in LO will add more barriers. There is a lot to be done: polish, services, plugins, mobile, etc. The community of contributors to this podling is artificially inflated. Naive people will show up here because of the Apache brand and the OO brand. They will not understand what is going on. The OO brand was given up by Oracle primarily because of the success of LibreOffice. LO has just built everything you need. LO has just recruited many of the most passionate and interested volunteers and other unaffiliated third-parties. LibreOffice is a young community, easily confused and frightened. They barely know this name LibreOffice. Meanwhile LO needs and would love to have another 10-whatever people. The OpenOffice brand would be very valuable to TDF today. LibreOffice can maximize the value and carry it on best right now. They need all kinds of help. They are not turning down one contribution. The hardware / bandwidth costs are not very expensive. It is the human costs. It is not just a question of if you fail, but what is the damage in that failed experiment. There is also the opportunity cost. If this podling fails, it could hurt the value of the OpenOffice brand, LibreOffice, waste resources (these emails are just the start), hurt Apache's reputation, etc. Some think this could finally the GPL debate for this codebase. It has always had a proprietary extra clause. That is the clause that is being used to create this license. Forks are one of the biggest reasons why free software has struggled in places. People at IBM responsible for Notes / Symphony may get bad reviews for building on top of a dying fork and when internal customers complain the product isn't as good as what comes with Linux. These open source evangelists are supposed to have their finger on the pulse of the community, not their finger in the face of the community. I stole that from someone ;-) No major revisions have been proposed. A no vote on current idea is fail-fast and the potential for a better plan. LO see this as a danger. They received more cash donations since this announcement. It will only be a trickle of volunteers. If more show up, LibreOffice can recruit in bulk. Wise people I have consulted with in LibreOffice believe this will fail. Some are not even worried anymore, but I am less confident. Some believe the Apache foundation is being used to legitimize a poorly thought-out idea. I believe the result will be the same no matter the vote unless the plan is changed. Once you have decided to shoot your foot, meeting cannot achieve much. I know I'm leaving out some points but this took time already. I am an un-affiliated observer rooting for Linux on the desktop and Python everywhere. I have spent years surveying and writing about Linux so I've come to respect the Apache server very much. Any rude bits in my mails were directed at IBM ;-) I think the foundation has been caught in the cross-fire of the language and license battles. I sympathize for your struggles. There is also actual proprietary competitors to fight as well! Isn't that the most important battle? Even if this is born, and fails, the community will pick up the pieces. It has many times before. I believe the LO opinion of the plan is close to unanimous and strongly-felt. My feelings are more mixed. Perhaps this can help serve as impetus for the vote.
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Keith Curtis wrote: This AL2 is not within the spirit of the tradition of this codebase because it is invoking a proprietary clause. The Apache License is a fully permissive, inclusive, non-viral, Open Source license. You are entirely incorrect. AL2 will make ongoing code sharing with LO impossible. No, again, you are wildly incorrect. Under the Apache License, TDF has full ability to use all code. The reverse, however, is not true, as their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Sam Ruby wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: Core development would happen at the ASF. Everyone: IBMer, TDFer, and other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under our license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under their own license. From that perspective, TDF and IBM would be equal players, each with their own enhancements. That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up. At the present time, there are people who would rather not participate in such an arrangement. You can only lead a horse to water. The most that we can do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b) execute. If we do both well, we will achieve much more than we could by prior agreement. Perhaps. Prior agreement wouldn't suck, though. :-) Existing developers need to know that they are absolutely welcomed here. I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't yet have a track record or anything new to offer. In what sense? What track record did we have developing LDAP until the people who wanted to built the Apache Directory Server here arrived? What track record did we have with databases before Derby arrived? The people currently working on the codebase at IBM clearly have a track record delivering their derived product. We've seen other people indicate that they want to join. And the more people with experience on the codebase who join, the more track record we have. The whole point is to build the Community. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
I don't know why people bother to put the Apache text at the top of every file, when someone else can just as quickly remove / relicense it. PS Have you read the Apache License? -- Paul Fremantle Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2 Apache Synapse PMC Chair OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org p...@wso2.com Oxygenating the Web Service Platform, www.wso2.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Hi, On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: The purpose of this list is not to explain how to do either of these. Exactly. Can we please kill off this thread already? It doesn't seem to add any value to the OOo discussion. BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: The first step to abandoning the Apache license is for others to recognize like you have that it is not a free/libre license. I don't know why people bother to put the Apache text at the top of every file, when someone else can just as quickly remove / relicense it. In addition to the above being totally incorrect (you can't remove/relicense), such ideological stances do nothing but divide communities and show either one's ignorance or one's unreasonableness. They have no place on this list. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP server. It is official: Keith is a troll. Do not feed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP server. It is official: Keith is a troll. We always have. Do not feed. Sorry for anything off-topic, etc. It was my first / only day on this list. The situation is frustrating and I saw a lot of stuff I disagreed with or was amazed by. I believe I have made all of my points already. Regards, -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Hi Keith, Convincing IBM to make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who is working on that? I would like to see ASL as official free license, not the GPL. Anyway IBM is huge and they do some cool stuff and sometimes they don't. LibreOffice is a success, and way ahead of you guys. There is a lot of work to be done. You can find a productive role for anyone in LibreOffice. I predict and hope that this project gets no support from the community as you are wasting our time starting with these emails. LibreOffice is a success, true. There is for sure much work to be done. But this is not the point. At Apache we like the ASL very much. This is one of the reasons we consider OOo - because we can work with the license we like. Everyone who has a choice should join LibreOffice. It has a better license, and a community of good people, distros and companies. I agree with the good people, the great distros. About the companies I don't know much. But I strongly disagree with the better license. There are cases were GPL is a very good choice. There are case were it is not. I cannot say ASL is better than GPL. Its just more to my taste and I have had great benefts of it. I am sorry, but this is leading us into a flamewar and that does not lead to anything. First people need to understand what they are missing. One little reminder: LibreOffice will be the official build for Linux, and will have the best support, so I don't even understand who you expect to get help from when few technical people will be using it. Thats great for LibreOffice and Linux. But the ASL does offer other options which makes OOo interesting. You could build your software upon the back of OOo and commercial ship it. I like that idea too. LibreOffice could use the work of the OO core developers / testers today. What is the status of them? They are the most important asset in this situation, not the evangelists / suits who seem on their way to screwing it up. I'm sure they would rather join LibreOffice. Everybody can choose. Python is a better language than Java. Sun screwed Java in addition to OpenOffice. The move from Java is another way LibreOffice is ahead. Java should be abandoned by the community, but that is mostly a side issue here. So what? I don't like Python. I hate its syntax. I like Java. This paragraph doesn't help this discussion. I think people working in MS Office would laugh at these mails. Perhaps they would root for IBM / Apache to succeed and cause more chaos and confusion. I sometimes think Linux on the desktop is hopeless because there are too many people so clever they manage to ignore basic facts. And your basic facts are Java is bad and the ASL is even more worse? And people should only work on one project, even when they cannot agree to their license? After all I am bit offended by your email. Maybe its because I am not a native speaker. E-Mails like this are highly philosophical and not matter of this discussion. We are not discussion which is the better license. We simply discuss if the podling should enter incubation or not. Can we handle the initial load? Can we get the project started? I would like to recommend you one link: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html I don't wont to convince you of anything, but I would like to show you that there are two different cases served with LO and OOo Cheers, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be raised here... On 6/5/2011 3:30 AM, Keith Curtis wrote: Why open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of software to be made proprietary in the future makes no sense to me. I would think the job of an IBM evangelist would be to advocate copyleft, not to evangelize lax licenses using IBM's reputation. It is the little guys that get screwed by lax licenses. Convincing IBM to make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who is working on that? First, let me correct you, open source predates the FSF. The OSI has done a fine job of addressing the meanings in a way all open source communities appreciate. There is a specific term used by the FSF and others, Free/Libre software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work is ever Free/Libre. There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought, and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the two of us can. With that said... LibreOffice is a success, and way ahead of you guys As an advocate of the one true license, I make several assumptions; that you have a disdain for the Microsoft and OS/X ports, as those operating systems are not Free. You aren't particularly keen on the BSD ports either, not because it is not Free, but that it does not promote the cause of software freedom. You have a goal of having the best collection of software possible available on Free Operating Systems, notably Linux. Sorry for any mischaracterization, but I would like to use your strong post to draw out this point; I see a strong role for license advocacy from LibreOffice, and also expect LibreOffice to extend OOo (with or without the ASF) in new and exciting directions. There are many developers who feel as you do, some possibly who even refused to play ball with the Sun/Oracle copyright assignment. LibreOffice might be expected to remain the premier Linux distribution of OpenOffice, as some of the best minds in Linux/Gnome/KDE development believe as you do. But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try to be the preeminent Windows or OS/X port of the software, since by definition improving GPL works for a closed source operating system is something of an oxymoron. Not that such a fork can't or shouldn't continue! But reactions such as your own are inevitable and to some extent, an ASF project gives the LibreOffice project more flexibility to focus on its core ecosystems, the Libre OS's. None of this is meant to be disingenuous to any open source or free software people or communities, it's just my reflections on how those individuals with strongly held licensing beliefs can (and likely will) collaborate within and across communities. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
This isn't helpful Bill IMO. Lotsa people have acculturated to the FSF view of software licensing, and no amount of arguing will change their mind. We have to accept that some people within libreoffice will just be completely turned off to the idea of collaborating with IBM for the sole purpose (as they see it) of enabling a closed-source product to be based on their work. That is a position I'm quite capable of respecting, despite my own view on the subject. Most of our own ideology surrounding licensing is based on pragmatism towards an intellectual commons that doesn't exclude closed source participation. It's not so much that we're fixated on the particulars of the Apache License, it's that it's good enough to allow us to build the types of communities we're interested in. It's the development communities and their dynamics that we focus on, and the license is there to reduce the amount of friction we deal with when accepting contributions. Could it be improved? Sure, but the cost of doing so far outweighs the foreseeable benefits at this point. That equation will no doubt change as time goes on. - Original Message From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 1:47:28 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be raised here... On 6/5/2011 3:30 AM, Keith Curtis wrote: Why open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of software to be made proprietary in the future makes no sense to me. I would think the job of an IBM evangelist would be to advocate copyleft, not to evangelize lax licenses using IBM's reputation. It is the little guys that get screwed by lax licenses. Convincing IBM to make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who is working on that? First, let me correct you, open source predates the FSF. The OSI has done a fine job of addressing the meanings in a way all open source communities appreciate. There is a specific term used by the FSF and others, Free/Libre software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work is ever Free/Libre. There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought, and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the two of us can. With that said... LibreOffice is a success, and way ahead of you guys As an advocate of the one true license, I make several assumptions; that you have a disdain for the Microsoft and OS/X ports, as those operating systems are not Free. You aren't particularly keen on the BSD ports either, not because it is not Free, but that it does not promote the cause of software freedom. You have a goal of having the best collection of software possible available on Free Operating Systems, notably Linux. Sorry for any mischaracterization, but I would like to use your strong post to draw out this point; I see a strong role for license advocacy from LibreOffice, and also expect LibreOffice to extend OOo (with or without the ASF) in new and exciting directions. There are many developers who feel as you do, some possibly who even refused to play ball with the Sun/Oracle copyright assignment. LibreOffice might be expected to remain the premier Linux distribution of OpenOffice, as some of the best minds in Linux/Gnome/KDE development believe as you do. But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try to be the preeminent Windows or OS/X port of the software, since by definition improving GPL works for a closed source operating system is something of an oxymoron. Not that such a fork can't or shouldn't continue! But reactions such as your own are inevitable and to some extent, an ASF project gives the LibreOffice project more flexibility to focus on its core ecosystems, the Libre OS's. None of this is meant to be disingenuous to any open source or free software people or communities, it's just my reflections on how those individuals with strongly held licensing beliefs can (and likely will) collaborate within and across communities. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM: Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558 Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future, depending on how far you get ;-) Please do check back in a year and see how we're doing. I'm sure your readers would benefit from what you'll be able to report at that point. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On 5 June 2011 18:47, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be raised here... But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try to be the preeminent Windows or OS/X port of the software, since by definition improving GPL works for a closed source operating system is something of an oxymoron. It's worth pointing out that many of the LO people are not necessarily religious about the license. Most migrated from a situation where their software was on Windows in much bigger volume than Linux. (I'm not sure of the Linux/Windows balance of LO installations but its likely to be more towards Linux simply by pre-installation) They might decide to focus on GNU/Linux distros but that is really a matter for their community. One of the concerns is that the license issue could split the existing LO community since some might be unconcerned about working on AL code and others might not want to touch it. In a way the problem is because there will be differences of view on that and you either adopt code or you don't, you can't have a halfway compromise and keep a common code base. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with your general aptitude or social skill level. By all means, if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as the org exists. - Original Message From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 4:57:32 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: This isn't helpful Bill IMO. Lotsa people have acculturated to the FSF view of software licensing, and no amount of arguing will change their mind. We have to accept that some people within libreoffice will just be completely turned off to the idea of collaborating with IBM for the sole purpose (as they see it) of enabling a closed-source product to be based on their work. That is a position I'm quite capable of respecting, despite my own view on the subject. My complaint about IBM is that it should know better than to endorse lax licenses. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:04 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM: Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558 Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future, depending on how far you get ;-) Please do check back in a year and see how we're doing. I'm sure your readers would benefit from what you'll be able to report at that point. -Rob Lots of bravado. Of course, that comes from being a suit and being able to get your way and order other people around. I don't trust your opinion on how successful you will be as you've already made wrong decisions and not had a great first week. As a writer, I can influence the outcome ;-) Anyway, the only thing that matters is the status of the remaining core OO developers. If we can get them working on LibreOffice, that would be very helpful. Others of you have Notes / Symphony, etc. to deliver. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with your general aptitude or social skill level. By all means, if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as the org exists. I don't represent LibreOffice so I don't have to be polite. I'm just going to make a few words and then leave and work on my own tasks. I'm a writer hawking books, so if you quote me, please link to my book. I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP server. I try to be polite / constructive, you should see what I delete. I want people to work together in the same codebases. Things go faster that way. Forking is expensive and damaging social engineering. LibreOffice is a great organization with great people and you would be foolish to not work with them and leverage what they've done. I'll work on quitting being juvenile if you work on quitting ignoring facts. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms. Instead they worked out terms with us. We aren't all that picky about new initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process to ferret out sustainable activity from those that aren't. It is great that Oracle gave up OO rather than sit on it. We should be grateful to Oracle for this gift. Note that LibreOffice deserves most of the credit for this opportunity. I wouldn't expect Oracle to give it to the TDF. Apache has IBM backing which looks more credible. I'm happy that there are a number of people who still care about the OOo brand that are willing to work here under our rules. For those that aren't, and are more interested in the LO brand, have an appropriate amount of fun. We'd still like you to collaborate with us even if it just means the collaboration is one-way- we're funny like that. If our code improves your project, all we ask is that you respect the license it came with. It isn't about the OOo brand or the LO brand. This is about the codebase, and getting as many people working in the same codebase as possible. That enforces division of labor. You can help fix each other's bugs if you share the same bug database. LibreOffice has already moved to GIT. It will get harder to share code as the trees diverge. You say you won't be the benefit of LibreOfice's work and yet I am amazed you don't care. Are you saying you don't want LibreOffice to relicense your Apache licensed work? Note of course you can only ask ;-) It seems a paradoxical thing to ask for, to create a permissive license, and then insist it stay permissive. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
- Original Message From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 6:12:14 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms. Instead they worked out terms with us. We aren't all that picky about new initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process to ferret out sustainable activity from those that aren't. It is great that Oracle gave up OO rather than sit on it. We should be grateful to Oracle for this gift. Note that LibreOffice deserves most of the credit for this opportunity. I wouldn't expect Oracle to give it to the TDF. Apache has IBM backing which looks more credible. I'm happy that there are a number of people who still care about the OOo brand that are willing to work here under our rules. For those that aren't, and are more interested in the LO brand, have an appropriate amount of fun. We'd still like you to collaborate with us even if it just means the collaboration is one-way- we're funny like that. If our code improves your project, all we ask is that you respect the license it came with. It isn't about the OOo brand or the LO brand. This is about the codebase, and getting as many people working in the same codebase as possible. That enforces division of labor. You can help fix each other's bugs if you share the same bug database. LibreOffice has already moved to GIT. It will get harder to share code as the trees diverge. You say you won't be the benefit of LibreOfice's work and yet I am amazed you don't care. We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept voluntary contributions. Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that. What we're hoping for is to attract devs who work on LO to join our project as committers, so whatever contributions they'd like to offer can get folded back to us without a lot of fuss. As I said earlier, the hope is that LO will pull from us for the core bits, and almost immediately we'll have the bits stored in svn mirrored to our github acct to facilitate that. While I wouldn't recommend this any time soon, at some point the ASF may try to tie access to the OOo brand to the use of a substantial amount of our software, so as not to confuse the public about the nature of the use of the mark. Are you saying you don't want LibreOffice to relicense your Apache licensed work? Note of course you can only ask ;-) It seems a paradoxical thing to ask for, to create a permissive license, and then insist it stay permissive. I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an apache.org list. Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that doesn't invalidate our license. There are treatments of this subject by FSF peeps on the net if you are interested (no, I'm not going to look them up here). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice
-Original Message- From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 6 June 2011 7:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with your general aptitude or social skill level. By all means, if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as the org exists. I don't represent LibreOffice so I don't have to be polite. I'm just going to make a few words and then leave and work on my own tasks. I'm a writer hawking books, so if you quote me, please link to my book. I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP server. It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ? You are slating all these projects and all the committers that work on them because a choice was made externally to the ASF that you personally do not like? I try to be polite / constructive, you should see what I delete. I want people to work together in the same codebases. Things go faster that way. Forking is expensive and damaging social engineering. You see, I've seen you and others mention forking is bad, blah blah, yet LibreOffice IS A FORK of OpenOffice. What a contradictory statement. What a huge one. LibreOffice is a great organization with great people and you would be foolish to not work with them and leverage what they've done. Has anyone here said they would not welcome folks from LibreOffice to come and help? I'll work on quitting being juvenile if you work on quitting ignoring facts. You are ignoring the fact that LibreOffice is a fork and yet you say forks are damaging. Git loves forking, LibreOffice uses Git. yep Gav... -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept voluntary contributions. Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that. What we're hoping for is to attract devs who work on LO to join our project as committers, so whatever contributions they'd like to offer can get folded back to us without a lot of fuss. As the trees diverge, it will get harder to give code to you both. What if some changes depend on other GPL code? Your insistence on Apache licensed work will make it hard for many people to contribute to you. I find it ironic that the Apache license is permissive, but the people don't want any free/libre code mixed with it. That is not permissive. As I said earlier, the hope is that LO will pull from us for the core bits, and almost immediately we'll have the bits stored in svn mirrored to our github acct to facilitate that. While I wouldn't recommend this any time soon, at some point the ASF may try to tie access to the OOo brand to the use of a substantial amount of our software, so as not to confuse the public about the nature of the use of the mark. LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of your software. Given that LibreOffice is what caused Oracle to give up their trademark, I would think you would offer it to them also. I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an apache.org list. Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that doesn't invalidate our license. There are treatments of this subject by FSF peeps on the net if you are interested (no, I'm not going to look them up here). I didn't want to argue about this minor point either, just point out that it seems paradoxical. If I got some interesting Apache-licensed code, the first thing I would do is put GPL at the top. Microsoft has created licenses that say that code can't be used in conjunction with copyleft. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
- Original Message From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 6:45:15 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept voluntary contributions. Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that. What we're hoping for is to attract devs who work on LO to join our project as committers, so whatever contributions they'd like to offer can get folded back to us without a lot of fuss. As the trees diverge, it will get harder to give code to you both. What if some changes depend on other GPL code? Your insistence on Apache licensed work will make it hard for many people to contribute to you. I find it ironic that the Apache license is permissive, but the people don't want any free/libre code mixed with it. That is not permissive. As I said earlier, the hope is that LO will pull from us for the core bits, and almost immediately we'll have the bits stored in svn mirrored to our github acct to facilitate that. While I wouldn't recommend this any time soon, at some point the ASF may try to tie access to the OOo brand to the use of a substantial amount of our software, so as not to confuse the public about the nature of the use of the mark. LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of your software. Given that LibreOffice is what caused Oracle to give up their trademark, I would think you would offer it to them also. We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own. That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our projects, but somehow they manage to release useful software. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote: It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ? Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on my laptop or server. http://projects.apache.org/indexes/language.html Apache is clearly useful to lots of other people, but by picking Java it has hurt its situation in the Linux community with people like me. You see, I've seen you and others mention forking is bad, blah blah, yet LibreOffice IS A FORK of OpenOffice. What a contradictory statement. What a huge one. LibreOffice was a useful fork. Sun / Oracle were screwing things up. Now that Oracle has given up OO, the fork can be undone. Git loves forking, LibreOffice uses Git. That isn't the social engineering I'm talking about. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own. That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our projects, but somehow they manage to release useful software. It is an interesting analogy, but seems not accurate because you can't mix with anything but type-O. The Linux kernel seems more of a type-O because it accepts both kinds of licenses. You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails. Regards, Dave -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote: It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ? Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on my laptop or server. http://projects.apache.org/indexes/language.html Apache is clearly useful to lots of other people, but by picking Java it has hurt its situation in the Linux community with people like me. Please, before you post here could you get some understanding of the ASF? The Apache Software Foundation doesn't pick anything. If you want to code in SNOBOL, Pascal, Fortran, Mumps, APL, C/C++, Assembly or any other language we really don't care. All we care about is that you can build a community and that your code is released under the Apache license. Obviously, there are a ton of people who disagree with you because they all proposed Java-based projects and attracted developers. As for the support of IBM you mentioned in another email, I almost fell over laughing. First, the ASF is made up entirely of individuals, both as committers and members. No corporations allowed. We do accept sponsorships both from individuals and corporations. What that buys you is what is documented at http://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html. Primarily the benefit consists entirely of what you see on http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html. I posted these in a prior post but you either didn't read them or just skimmed them. Please read them again. [1] http://theapacheway.com/ [2] https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/incubation_at_apache_what_s [3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#incubator Ralph
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Keith, You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension about how the ASF works. The ASF did not 'choose Java.' The ASF provides a legal and technical infrastructure for human beings to collaborate. It asks them to work within certain principles of governance and, indeed, licensing. Funny thing, many of us felt that the best way to solve our collective problems was to write code in Java. If we were the sort of people who felt that a particular philosophical approach to 'freedom' was paramount, we wouldn't be here at all. Though, I'd point out, the FSF-inspired anti-Java campaign seems to have softened quite a bit over the last few years. Understanding this will help you to understand the situation at hand. On the one hand, Oracle has granted this code to the Foundation. On the other hand, a group of people have shown up and made a proposal to erect a community around that code. Really, truly, that's all that we need around here, so long as there's reasonable evidence that the community can, in fact, conform to the Foundation's requirements. It would be wonderful if One Big Happy Open Office.Org Family results from this event, but we don't have to have a Diet of Worms convene and agree on the outlines of that family in advance. --benson margulies - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails. I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, the larger point seems that the Linux kernel is a better type-O because it accepts all kinds of changes. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: Please, before you post here could you get some understanding of the ASF? The Apache Software Foundation doesn't pick anything. I realize that everyone makes their own choice, it just seems that Java is the dominant language. Whereas it is being phased out of LibreOffice. All we care about is that you can build a community and that your code is released under the Apache license. It seems some want more than that, because they also don't want it to be relicensed and made GPL later. The Apache license doesn't say anything about it, so saying you just want the Apache license does not seem totally true. We don't care what users do with our software. Those who are smart and create proprietary products with it contribute back because they don't want to maintain a proprietary fork, but we don't care if they don't.. They are happy to extend it with their own proprietary stuff and we are fine with that. As for the support of IBM you mentioned in another email, I almost fell over laughing. There are a number of people being paid by IBM on this list who are involved with this OO effort. So what? They are here as individuals. I get paid by an employer too. Although I take their interests into account I am not bound by them. I read your stuff. I find it paradoxical that the Apache org claims to be pragmatic, yet insists on the Apache license + no relicensing. What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then there really is no point to further discussion. Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then there really is no point to further discussion. Joe Shafer wrote this: -- I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an apache.org list. Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that doesn't invalidate our license. Seems like he is saying he doesn't want people to change the license of Apache software. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails. I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, the larger point seems that the Linux kernel is a better type-O because it accepts all kinds of changes. The statement was ASL is a universal donor, in the blood analogy a type O-. You are saying that it is best to be a universal recipient - in blood terms AB+. Not type O. To continue, an individual with O- blood has to be extremely careful whose blood they accept. The individual with AB+ need not care much about the type. This is a unique opportunity to declare a substantial portion of the OOo/LOo blood supply be magically converted to type O- from AB+. Isn't that the real wave of the magic wand that Oracle has given the whole community by this Software Grant. LO/TDF would be free to convert Apache OO blood into whatever type of supply they choose. Since the TDF currently requires contributions to be dual typed (licensed) then this allows the fork to be relicensed by LO/TDF on perhaps better terms for the LOo community. Regards, Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
Sublicensing and how it relates to the original source bits and contributions based on those bits is a complex issue. The license on those bits doesn't change simply because you slapped a different license on the work as a whole. In any case I fail to see how this line of inquiry is of any benefit to anyone, so lets just drop it. - Original Message From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 7:40:31 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then there really is no point to further discussion. Joe Shafer wrote this: -- I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an apache.org list. Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that doesn't invalidate our license. Seems like he is saying he doesn't want people to change the license of Apache software. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then there really is no point to further discussion. Joe Shafer wrote this: -- I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an apache.org list. Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that doesn't invalidate our license. Seems like he is saying he doesn't want people to change the license of Apache software. There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html This will help you properly research the topic as well: http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html Regards, Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then there really is no point to further discussion. Joe Shafer wrote this: -- I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an apache.org list. Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that doesn't invalidate our license. Seems like he is saying he doesn't want people to change the license of Apache software. Then you haven't read and comprehended the Apache license. Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails. I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, the larger point seems that the Linux kernel is a better type-O because it accepts all kinds of changes. The statement was ASL is a universal donor, in the blood analogy a type O-. You are saying that it is best to be a universal recipient - in blood terms AB+. Not type O. I think it depends on who is the donor and who is the recipient in this analogy because there is code flowing in both directions, but my point here is that the Linux kernel situation is more pragmatic in that it works with code of multiple licenses. I just want you to think about sharing bug lists. Etc. LibreOffice has your latest code already integrated, I believe. Given LibreOffice's success, and the fact that it has just built everything you need, this has the potential to cause confusion and wasted efforts. You can do an infinite amount of proprietary or Apache software on top of LibreOffice. I think some should think about building Notes and Symphony on top LibreOffice. That is plenty of work and will provide big benefits. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html This will help you properly research the topic as well: http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html Regards, Dave The redistribution terms only have to be respected until I relicense the code. That can be done via grep. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice
As a type O-positive human, I think the metaphor works quite well. I can donate blood that is compatible with folks that I can't receive blood from. In fact, I can only receive blood of another O-type individual (positive or negative). Yet my blood is compatible with that of all *-positive individuals (* = A, B, AB). I donate regularly (every 8-10 weeks or so), willingly and without need for compensation. I didn't get to choose my blood type. But I can choose to be an ALv2 contributor and know that, technically, there is no one unable to use that contribution if they are able to use any at all. I can also continue to contribute to LibreOffice, although it is unlikely that I will ever contribute code there. That's like donating at a blood bank that only transfuses a single non-O type. Likewise, I do not read code having non-permissive licenses if I can avoid it. It is toxic for me (metaphorically and for practical reasons). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 16:04 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own. That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our projects, but somehow they manage to release useful software. It is an interesting analogy, but seems not accurate because you can't mix with anything but type-O. The Linux kernel seems more of a type-O because it accepts both kinds of licenses. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html This will help you properly research the topic as well: http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html Regards, Dave The redistribution terms only have to be respected until I relicense the code. That can be done via grep. You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must respect its terms. Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation. -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html This will help you properly research the topic as well: http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html Regards, Dave The redistribution terms only have to be respected until I relicense the code. That can be done via grep. You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must respect its terms. Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation. An example of how another project has dealt with this: http://wikis.sun.com/display/GlassFish/Copyrights -g - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must respect its terms. Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation. I have not seen a lawsuit over an Apache license, though I've only been watching for a few years. Is it possible? I believe I can sublicense it or something, with terms that make the whole thing proprietary. People can make Apache code proprietary somehow, right? That is the big benefit of it. And when I've done that, I don't have to worry about the old redistribution terms or any of the old terms anymore. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must respect its terms. Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation. I have not seen a lawsuit over an Apache license, though I've only been watching for a few years. Is it possible? I can confirm that we have gotten people to address compliance issues that we have found. And the fact that we have managed to do so without resorting to a lawsuit is goodness. And, no, I have no intention naming names. I believe I can sublicense it or something, with terms that make the whole thing proprietary. People can make Apache code proprietary somehow, right? That is the big benefit of it. And when I've done that, I don't have to worry about the old redistribution terms or any of the old terms anymore. Fully disagree. I encourage you to read the terms. -Keith - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Fully disagree. I encourage you to read the terms. -Keith - Sam Ruby This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says: The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On 6/5/2011 6:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own. That universal donor condition places lots of restrictions on our projects, but somehow they manage to release useful software. It is an interesting analogy, but seems not accurate because you can't mix with anything but type-O. The Linux kernel seems more of a type-O because it accepts both kinds of licenses. Wrong, Keith. This isn't the sort of claim you want to make while attempting to become a respected writer on software topics, although you are in good company with many technical journalists. With the exception of pure-BSD purists (who reject the patent clauses) AL can be mixed with any code to come out with the more restrictive of the licenses. AL + BSD == AL AL + MPL == MPL AL + GPL == GPL The following are not possible; AL + BSD != BSD AL + MPL != MPL AL + GPL != AL So the input AL code can be combined as a donor to any effort and result in an appropriate license to the finished effort. The converse cannot be said of GPL, which explicitly prohibits additional terms or conditions on the resulting license. GPL is type AB+, as it can not produce other outcome. Perhaps your ignorance comes from medical science, though? You supposedly learned this in 6th grade, but I wouldn't brag about your report card. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Fully disagree. I encourage you to read the terms. -Keith - Sam Ruby This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says: The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license. You are confusing copyright and software licensing. You can modify software that is under the Apache license and use it in a proprietary product but you have to do it in a way that complies with the license and copyright law. You can use also use software that is under the LGPL in a proprietary product. The purpose of this list is not to explain how to do either of these. Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On 6/5/2011 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: With the exception of pure-BSD purists (who reject the patent clauses) AL can be mixed with any code to come out with the more restrictive of the licenses. AL + BSD == AL AL + MPL == MPL AL + GPL == GPL The following are not possible; AL + BSD != BSD AL + MPL != MPL AL + GPL != AL Escuse the typo, getting tired of this thread. AL + MPL != AL. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says: The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license. You are confusing copyright and software licensing. I think: Copyright is a bunch of laws and court cases. Licenses are copyright-related text that gets applied to software and other things. If modified versions of the software don't require the same license, then any terms and restrictions you bring up no longer apply because that is the old license you are now referring to. You can modify software that is under the Apache license and use it in a proprietary product but you have to do it in a way that complies with the license and copyright law. You can use also use software that is under the LGPL in a proprietary product. Yes, that is why Oracle can depend on Linux, Notes and Symphony can build on top of LibreOffice, etc. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice - That's Not What Re-Licensing Is
If you remove the ALv2 license and don't provide the notice that the license requires, you are in violation and are infringing the Apache copyright. Likewise, adding a copyright notice to an intact public domain work is not a claim that is defensible. There's a misunderstanding about relicensing in this discussion, and I have been guilty of it in my casual use of the term as well. You can't relicense the copyright on something that is not your work and to which you do not have a grant of copyright. It is not possible to legally usurp a copyright and nothing in ALv2 permits that (since it is *not* a copyright transfer, it is a license). What the ALv2 (I am practicing this form as part of being kept after school to clean erasers) does is permit incorporation in derivative works, compilations, combined works, etc., without limitation. But *your* license covers only the part that is your work. The material sourced under the ALv2, to the extent that it remains, is still under the ALv2, although licensed to you and sublicensed to the recipients of your work. In short, you can never legally claim copyright of that which is not your work unless you have been granted a copyright transfer. The ALv2 doesn't do that. The ALv2 is generous in how you can use that work in conjunction with yours and also licenses other exclusive rights of copyright owners that give you great freedom of use. But claiming copyright and substituting your own license is not OK. When LO incorporates any of the Apache OpenOffice.org code, it will have to treat it like third-party code the way it does now for material under compatible licenses from other third parties. This is the same thing that IBM would have to do (if they have no other license that they can rely on from Sun or Oracle), and certainly what Microsoft or Google would have to do. The sense in which re-licensing applies here is that, so long as everything is compatible, the derivative can be under any license whatsoever, and distributed in any manner whatsoever, so long as the non-negotiable conditions of ALv2 are honored (and hence the license is honored). Similarly, if the producer of the derivative decides to change their license, but everything is still compatible, the ALv2 is no obstacle to that. That is what the re-licensing opportunity is. It would be great if there were a better term for this. But the key thing is the ALv2 code is not relicensed, but the work it is combined into, derivative in, compiled in, whatever, can be produced with a different license and that license can be changed by someone who has that right. Furthermore, and don't confuse this with re-licensing, even though the code is used in a proprietary product, it does not make the ALv2-licensed portions the property of the producer. What the ALv2 does is give that producer a license to their doing that with the ALv2 subject matter and not requiring that their source code be made public and with no obligation to contribute back to Apache. I guess my next after-school will be cleaning erasers for Larry Rosen. - Dennis PS: This is why it is also important for projects to manage the provenance of every bit of their code, because third-party licenses still adhere to the extent that is required. It also helps defend against claims that such-and-such code was plagiarized in a manner that violated some other license that the same or similar code can be found wrapped in. PPS: That is also why one should read the freakin' ALv2 license at the provided link and not take advice from Wikipedia. The language of the license is plain enough. -Original Message- From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cBANLkTikPBnwLVtntcdhEYCjxxS774T+t=g...@mail.gmail.com%3e Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 17:18 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice [ ... ] The redistribution terms only have to be respected until I relicense the code. That can be done via grep. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice LibreOffice
In support of Sam's point here, I add that OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice.org already provide the required ALv2 notices in their listings of third-party dependencies. The list is installed as part of every install of one of the distributions. I even included a copy of one of the latest LibreOffice ones in an earlier post. So folks curious about this should satisfy themselves that the LibreOffice office team already knows how to handle this. - Dennis -Original Message- From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktinrzfojmgsjh9b9epm6ad568ma...@mail.gmail.com%3e Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 17:47 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cBANLkTik1Gbt5GER3==SJK=1cvspp5za...@mail.gmail.com%3e [ ... ] You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must respect its terms. Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation. An example of how another project has dealt with this: http://wikis.sun.com/display/GlassFish/Copyrights -g - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
