[Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
Oracle announce: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm IBM is very happy to be able to continue Symphony without having to give code back... (they seems to rejoyce at being able to do selective GPL: i.e what is yours is mine... but what is mine is yours only for the peice I don't care about and would like you to maintain instead): http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/openoffice-moving-to-apache-good-news-for-the-desktop-productivity-market The new project at Apache strengthens IBM's ability to continue to offer our own distributions of productivity tools based on the OpenOffice code base and make our own contributions to reinforce the overall community. And IBM promise to contribute 'inovative' feature in the future: We have done a bunch of innovative things and one-plusses on top of the OO.o codebase, including accessibility work, the data pilot engine, and Office 2007 file format compatibility. Of course 'innovative'(*) feature like Office 2007 compatibility and Data Pilot engine are already today in libreoffice... Norbert (*) aka IBM notorious NIH syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water - they're just throwing away so much experience. I certainly wouldn't want to be facing something the size of LO/OOo without a team who've had to deal with it before :) I'm fairly new to LibreOffice and contributing to FOSS but the community have been highly supportive of my questions and cluelessness. I am fairly shy online and not very confident in my coding skills but there is so much infrastructure geared toward getting newbies to contribute that it has been pretty much painless to just get straight into it despite the terrifying size of the project. I think that in part it's the people and in part it's the way things are being done. It seems a shame to waste an opportunity to integrate with a community with these advantages. Eilidh On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote: Oracle announce: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm IBM is very happy to be able to continue Symphony without having to give code back... (they seems to rejoyce at being able to do selective GPL: i.e what is yours is mine... but what is mine is yours only for the peice I don't care about and would like you to maintain instead): http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/openoffice-moving-to-apache-good-news-for-the-desktop-productivity-market The new project at Apache strengthens IBM's ability to continue to offer our own distributions of productivity tools based on the OpenOffice code base and make our own contributions to reinforce the overall community. And IBM promise to contribute 'inovative' feature in the future: We have done a bunch of innovative things and one-plusses on top of the OO.o codebase, including accessibility work, the data pilot engine, and Office 2007 file format compatibility. Of course 'innovative'(*) feature like Office 2007 compatibility and Data Pilot engine are already today in libreoffice... Norbert (*) aka IBM notorious NIH syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
Original Message From: Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com Oracle announce: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm m IBM is very happy to be able to continue Symphony without having to give code back... (they seems to rejoyce at being able to do selective GPL: i.e what is yours is mine... but what is mine is yours only for the peice I don't care about and would like you to maintain instead): http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/openoffice-moving-to-apache-good-news-for-the-desktop-productivity-market t The new project at Apache strengthens IBM's ability to continue to offer our own distributions of productivity tools based on the OpenOffice code base and make our own contributions to reinforce the overall community. FYI - LGPL/GPL does not _require_ that code be contributed back to the _community_. Projects work best when that happens, but that is not a requirement. The _requirement_ is that the code be accessible to those that the project is being distributed to - e.g. end-users. In the case of IBM, a user of Symphony would have been able to ask for the code and IBM would have had to provide it per LGPL/GPL if that were the license. It does not mean that IBM would have had to contribute back to LibreOffice, OpenOffice, or anyone else. Ben ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
Hi Ben, On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:37 -0700, BRM wrote: FYI - LGPL/GPL does not _require_ that code be contributed back to the _community_. Projects work best when that happens, but that is not a requirement. True - on the other hand, if millions of people have the right to get the source code (a mass market product). If a copy-left license is used - it means the cheapest way to do that is to provide the source to everyone. If no (C) assignment is required, then those changes can trivially be merged, of course that is the LibreOffice structure. But a fair point, it is conditioned to distribution :-) It is also the case that the Apache license has no requirement to share changes with anyone. Some argue that this lack of requirement encourages sharing, I am very un-persuaded by that personally and historically around OO.o this has clearly not been the case ;-) Regards, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:37 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: Original Message From: Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com Oracle announce: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm m IBM is very happy to be able to continue Symphony without having to give code back... (they seems to rejoyce at being able to do selective GPL: i.e what is yours is mine... but what is mine is yours only for the peice I don't care about and would like you to maintain instead): http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/openoffice-moving-to-apache-good-news-for-the-desktop-productivity-market t The new project at Apache strengthens IBM's ability to continue to offer our own distributions of productivity tools based on the OpenOffice code base and make our own contributions to reinforce the overall community. FYI - LGPL/GPL does not _require_ that code be contributed back to the _community_. Projects work best when that happens, but that is not a requirement. The _requirement_ is that the code be accessible to those that the project is being distributed to - e.g. end-users. And with Apache License that requirement is gone... In the case of IBM, a user of Symphony would have been able to ask for the code and IBM would have had to provide it per LGPL/GPL if that were the license. It does not mean that IBM would have had to contribute back to LibreOffice, OpenOffice, or anyone else. But that is _not_ the license, and with Apache License they would not have to make it available at ALL to anybody... just as is the case with their proprietary OO fork today. Hence the Enthusiastic blog campaign that flourished from IBMers in the minutes/hours following the public announcement of Oracle's intend to dump OpenOffice.org in Apache's lap. But that's fine, IBM is free to conduct their business they way they want, as long as there is no doubt in anybody's mind that that latest Oracle' move has nothing to do with 'unifying/strengthening the 'community', but everything to do with Oracle's contractual obligation to IBM and IBM desire to continue their proprietary fork. OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes. Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony. source: http://ibm-lotus-symphony.software.informer.com/wiki/ If anybody in unconvinced why copyright assignment or Apache-like full-copyright-license-no-string-attached are evil the quote above should settle that. Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
I think this is about licenses. Under the Apache 2.0 license, I expect we will see contributions from IBM and others for whom reciprocal licenses are toxic. I recently noticed that the ODF Toolkit Java bits are Apache licensed already, so that is also helpful. With regard to community, documentation efforts, and other activities, The Document Foundation is a better fit because of its focused approach. I don't think of Apache as so oriented to desktop software end-user support, QA, etc. We'll find out. With regard to experience in OO.o development, I don't know what Oracle's OO.o team, especially those in Germany, will be doing now. The surfacing of IBM contributors will be helpful though. There is no reason Apache fixes and contributions can't be merged into LibreOffice the same way that the OO.o changes can come to LibreOffice. It is not so smooth, and if there is a serious fork that will be problematic. My concern is that this could be a one-way street. there is no way LGPL LibreOffice updates can go into the Apache code (unless the MPL avenue works or we choose to dual license with the Apache license as well). At the moment, I feel a bit conflicted, caught straddling between preference for user discussions and bug submissions here, and my established desire to develop and contribute code that is acceptable to Apache-licensed projects. And hey, Subversion works for me. - Dennis PS: I notice that the proposal to create an Apache Incubator omits the risk of their being a fork and divided developer community. There is this presumption: Both Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org development community, previously fragmented, would re-unite under ASF to ensure a stable and long term future for OpenOffice.org. ASF would enable corporate, non-profit, and volunteer stakeholders to contribute code in a collaborative fashion. I agree with what ASF would enable, but I don't think it is in the power of ASF and Oracle to ensure re-uniting of the development community. -Original Message- From: libreoffice-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm@lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:libreoffice-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Tibby Lickle Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 11:03 To: libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water - they're just throwing away so much experience. I certainly wouldn't want to be facing something the size of LO/OOo without a team who've had to deal with it before :) I'm fairly new to LibreOffice and contributing to FOSS but the community have been highly supportive of my questions and cluelessness. I am fairly shy online and not very confident in my coding skills but there is so much infrastructure geared toward getting newbies to contribute that it has been pretty much painless to just get straight into it despite the terrifying size of the project. I think that in part it's the people and in part it's the way things are being done. It seems a shame to waste an opportunity to integrate with a community with these advantages. Eilidh On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-June/013126.html ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
Hi Norbert, On 01/06/2011 23:07, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: [...] But that is _not_ the license, and with Apache License they would not have to make it available at ALL to anybody... just as is the case with their proprietary OO fork today. Hence the Enthusiastic blog campaign that flourished from IBMers in the minutes/hours following the public announcement of Oracle's intend to dump OpenOffice.org in Apache's lap. But that's fine, IBM is free to conduct their business they way they want, as long as there is no doubt in anybody's mind that that latest Oracle' move has nothing to do with 'unifying/strengthening the 'community', but everything to do with Oracle's contractual obligation to IBM and IBM desire to continue their proprietary fork. +1 OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes. Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony. source: http://ibm-lotus-symphony.software.informer.com/wiki/ If anybody in unconvinced why copyright assignment or Apache-like full-copyright-license-no-string-attached are evil the quote above should settle that. Thanks for this (makes me feel less alone ;) and I wish you could be heard by some medias... Kind regards Sophie ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
- Original Message
From: Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com
To: BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com
Cc: libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org
Sent: Wed, June 1, 2011 4:07:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:37 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
Original Message
From: Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com
Oracle announce:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm
m
m
IBM is very happy to be able to continue Symphony without having to
give code back... (they seems to rejoyce at being able to do selective
GPL: i.e what is yours is mine... but what is mine is yours only for
the peice I don't care about and would like you to maintain instead):
http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/openoffice-moving-to-apache-good-news-for-the-desktop-productivity-market
t
t
The new project at Apache strengthens IBM's ability to continue to
offer our own distributions of productivity tools based on the
OpenOffice code base and make our own contributions to reinforce the
overall community.
FYI - LGPL/GPL does not _require_ that code be contributed back to the
_community_. Projects work best when that happens, but that is not a
requirement.
The _requirement_ is that the code be accessible to those that the project
is
being distributed to - e.g. end-users.
And with Apache License that requirement is gone...
WRT OOo, never said it was there. just correcting the mistaken belief that GPL
always means sharing code with everyone - it doesn't.
A belief all too common in the GPL world.
From: Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com
True - on the other hand, if millions of people have the right to get
the source code (a mass market product). If a copy-left license is used
- it means the cheapest way to do that is to provide the source to
everyone. If no (C) assignment is required, then those changes can
trivially be merged, of course that is the LibreOffice structure.
As I said, projects work best when code is contributed back.
That said, there are many successful projects that are not GPL or LGPL that
don't have that requirement with very flourishing communities - many lead by
ASF.
From: Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com
In the case of IBM, a user of Symphony would have been able to ask for the
code
and IBM would have had to provide it per LGPL/GPL if that were the license.
It does not mean that IBM would have had to contribute back to LibreOffice,
OpenOffice, or anyone else.
But that is _not_ the license, and with Apache License they would not
have to make it available at ALL to anybody... just as is the case
with their proprietary OO fork today.
Hence the Enthusiastic blog campaign that flourished from IBMers in
the minutes/hours following the public announcement of Oracle's intend
to dump OpenOffice.org in Apache's lap.
But that's fine, IBM is free to conduct their business they way they
want, as long as there is no doubt in anybody's mind that that latest
Oracle' move has nothing to do with 'unifying/strengthening the
'community', but everything to do with Oracle's contractual obligation
to IBM and IBM desire to continue their proprietary fork.
OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual licensed under both the GNU
Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for
entities to change the code without releasing their changes.
Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony.
source: http://ibm-lotus-symphony.software.informer.com/wiki/
If anybody in unconvinced why copyright assignment or Apache-like
full-copyright-license-no-string-attached are evil the quote above
should settle that.
And there are useful benefits to both approaches. Personally I am typically
more
likely to go GPL;
that said, I am getting ready to spear head a small project - to be added to a
major project - that will need to be able to
allow the major project to do something similar - they have a dual licensing
system, with both commercial and GPL licenses,
and my employer makes use of the commercial license. We generally do not modify
the that project, so nothing to contribute back normally any how, but
the commercial license lets us build our (proprietary) products on top of that
major project, and my little project will be very useful to me at work - a
major
improvement over what is currently provided.
Just saying, there's more than one way to skin the cat (as the old saying
goes),
and there are multiple reason for choosing difference licensing methods,
many of which are very valid reasons - not all of which lead to GPL/LGPL.
Ben
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: Just saying, there's more than one way to skin the cat (as the old saying goes), and there are multiple reason for choosing difference licensing methods, many of which are very valid reasons - not all of which lead to GPL/LGPL. To be clear I'm not saying that IBM reason for acting the way they are is not 'valid'. I'm saying that this is not 'valid' for me and _my_ reasons to participate, and, I suppose/hope(*), for most people that chose to participate in LibreOffice. Norbert (*) Actually it is a bit more than wishful thinking. There has been significant evidences of numerous people indicating this (LGPL/no CLA) was indeed a motivating factor in their decision to join LibreOffice. and clearly that was also in the mind of the core group that started it too. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: PS: I notice that the proposal to create an Apache Incubator omits the risk of their being a fork and divided developer community. There is this presumption: Both Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org development community, previously fragmented, would re-unite under ASF to ensure a stable and long term future for OpenOffice.org. ASF would enable corporate, non-profit, and volunteer stakeholders to contribute code in a collaborative fashion. I agree with what ASF would enable, but I don't think it is in the power of ASF and Oracle to ensure re-uniting of the development community. That part (Both Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org development community, previously fragmented, would re-unite under ASF) is pure hand-waving, bordering on outright lie. All parties authoring that text must know the situation very well, and therefore must know that Apache License is no more likely to fly than Oracle's Copyright Assignment did. The 'best' (from IBM point of view and for Oracle's ego) that can occurs is that IBM manage to lobby current company that have paid-employee (Attachmate, RedHat, Canonical,..) on LibreOffice to re-assign them to a future ApacheOffice, drying up significantly libreoffice core devs and pushing the recent influx of volonteers to greener pasture... (and no, that won't necessarily mean them flocking to Apache... I, for one, never contributed to OpenOffice under Sun/Oracle tenure... I'm sure i could find something else to do if need be) In other words going back to the model sarcasmthat worked so well in past years/sarcarm Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
I also notice that the Apache CLA is not a copyright assignment, it is simply a non-exclusive license with the usual attestation that I have the right to grant the license and it is my original work. (Patch contributions apparently don't even require a CLA, but committers do.) One could make the same contribution to both an Apache project and LibreOffice, although it takes more work. For individual contributors such as myself: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt So, in that regard, it is not like the transfer that I understand Sun/Oracle required for contributions to OO.o. - Dennis PS: It is personally appealing to me that the Apache project proposes to use the tools I already use for other projects (i.e., Subversion and JIRA). I don't have any plans to contribute anything, but it is heartening to know that part of the learning curve would be handled for me if I chose to do so. -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-June/013136.html Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 13:12 To: 'Tibby Lickle'; 'libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org' Subject: RE: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org I think this is about licenses. Under the Apache 2.0 license, I expect we will see contributions from IBM and others for whom reciprocal licenses are toxic. I recently noticed that the ODF Toolkit Java bits are Apache licensed already, so that is also helpful. [ ... ] At the moment, I feel a bit conflicted, caught straddling between preference for user discussions and bug submissions here, and my established desire to develop and contribute code that is acceptable to Apache-licensed projects. And hey, Subversion works for me. - Dennis PS: I notice that the proposal to create an Apache Incubator omits the risk of their being a fork and divided developer community. There is this presumption: Both Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org development community, previously fragmented, would re-unite under ASF to ensure a stable and long term future for OpenOffice.org. ASF would enable corporate, non-profit, and volunteer stakeholders to contribute code in a collaborative fashion. I agree with what ASF would enable, but I don't think it is in the power of ASF and Oracle to ensure re-uniting of the development community. [ ... ] ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
Hi Dennis, On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: PS: It is personally appealing to me that the Apache project proposes to use the tools I already use for other projects (i.e., Subversion and JIRA). I don't have any plans to contribute anything, but it is heartening to know that part of the learning curve would be handled for me if I chose to do so. I wouldn't be so thrilled about their use of Subversion if I were you. Many of us went through the period when OOo used Subversion back in the old days, and all I can say is that Subversion had a massive scalability issue dealing with a code base the size of OOo that it brought more pain than its worth, so much so that it actually accelerated the process of finding an alternative VCS. Besides, once you get used to the benefit of using a distributed VCS such as git and mercurial, you can't really go back to the old, centralized VCS such as Subversion. There is a learning curve on distributed VCS, for sure, but it's well worth it in the long term. Kohei ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I also notice that the Apache CLA is not a copyright assignment, it is simply a non-exclusive license with the usual attestation that I have the right to grant the license and it is my original work. (Patch contributions apparently don't even require a CLA, but committers do.) One could make the same contribution to both an Apache project and LibreOffice, although it takes more work. For individual contributors such as myself: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt So, in that regard, it is not like the transfer that I understand Sun/Oracle required for contributions to OO.o. That is incorrect. the Sun/Oracle Ccontributor Agreement stipulate a 'join' ownership. http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/oca.pdf It is essentially the same thing, except that in turn Apache grant license to everybody to do what-ever they want with the code (i.e not copy-left) whereas Sun/Oracle where doing that only to a select few of their choosing. So, from a Third-Party Closed License perspective Apache License is 'better'... but from a 'community' point of view it is just as bad. Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
I am not going to get into a debate about what is bad, good, and better with regard to different open-source licenses. It is my desire to give the recipients of my code all of the rights that I have, and have them know that they have those rights, subject to the requirement for attribution. That's my sense of community. I am a Creative Commons Attribution kind of guy. I am the same way with my code (BSD generally but the Apache 2.0 CLA is all right with me). It's my lawful right, and I am happy with it. I'm also satisfied that both modified BSD and Apache 2.0 are considered GPL-compatible by the FSF. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthieb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 17:05 To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org Cc: libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I also notice that the Apache CLA is not a copyright assignment, it is simply a non-exclusive license with the usual attestation that I have the right to grant the license and it is my original work. (Patch contributions apparently don't even require a CLA, but committers do.) One could make the same contribution to both an Apache project and LibreOffice, although it takes more work. For individual contributors such as myself: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt So, in that regard, it is not like the transfer that I understand Sun/Oracle required for contributions to OO.o. That is incorrect. the Sun/Oracle Ccontributor Agreement stipulate a 'join' ownership. http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/oca.pdf It is essentially the same thing, except that in turn Apache grant license to everybody to do what-ever they want with the code (i.e not copy-left) whereas Sun/Oracle where doing that only to a select few of their choosing. So, from a Third-Party Closed License perspective Apache License is 'better'... but from a 'community' point of view it is just as bad. Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
