Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
I will answer later today, I hope. Sorry for the delay. Pedro schrieb am Do., 12. Jan. 2017, 11:01: > Hi Peter > > > If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the > > Permissive license can be the stronger choice. > > I do not believe that a lot of people understand this. > > Can you elaborate on this point? I don't really see how using a > copyleftless license is better when your business "works directly with > the Product". > > I see it as altruistic (like copyleft is communistic) but as a business > model, I really don't see how it is a "stronger choice". Using a > copyleftless license allows anyone else to build exactly the same > product. > > Regards, > Pedro > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu verhandeln.
Re: future of OpenOffice
Am 13.01.2017 um 01:26 schrieb Simos Xenitellis: > > There is the standing issue with the old www.openoffice.org > that has been repurposed as the front page for Apache OpenOffice. > > I would expect that the historical hostname "www.openoffice.org" to simply > show > a list of OpenOffice.org-based projects, and inform the visitor their options. We had this request some times before. Our answer was each time a clear "no". Nothing has changed in the meanwhile. There are no (new) reasons, why we should do this. So this question is needless. Kind regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
Am 12.01.2017 um 19:21 schrieb Dave: > On 12.01.2017 16:54, RA Stehmann wrote: >> Is the past on topic for the future? > > Assuming that you are responding to my post in this thread, I do not want to answer to your post, but the questions are caused by the post of Nagy Ákos some minutes before. Kind regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
On 12 January 2017 at 18:29, Simon Phipps wrote: > S. > (speaking here only as an AOO community member) Thanks, Simon. I have long desired for there to be a useful confluence and even convergence of code, effort, vision--I mean between LO and AOO. Would still be nice, if only for the sake of large-scale users. I left AOO PMC a while ago, in part because of other calls on my time, and also because I did not see a solution to the situation. best louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: > Hello, > > this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet. > > If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice > versa. > > We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any > topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again. > There is the standing issue with the old www.openoffice.org that has been repurposed as the front page for Apache OpenOffice. I would expect that the historical hostname "www.openoffice.org" to simply show a list of OpenOffice.org-based projects, and inform the visitor their options. Specifically, it should show Apache OpenOffice Libreoffice NeoOffice -> apache.openoffice.org -> www.libreoffice.org -> www.neooffice.org I am happy to design and propose such a page. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hi Dave, all. On 12 Jan 2017 22:50, "Dave Fisher" wrote: Please correct the specific non Apache licenses if I get them wrong. As far as I know the sequence of events is: OpenOffice.org was originally dual licensed under LGPLv2 and SISSL (OSI approved but now retired). With v3 we changed the license to LGPLv3 only. When Oracle bought Sun, OO.o was licensed just under LGPLv3. Oracle buys Sun including OpenOffice (closed license) and the open source OpenOffice.org (GPL2). At the time of purchase, the proprietary version was called "StarOffice"; Oracle changed the name of this proprietary version to Oracle Open Office. TheDocumentFoundation forms and forks OpenOffice.org as LibreOffice under GPL2 LibreOffice was only under LGPLv3 at this point as any other choice would have required the copyright owner to relicense. At some point (not sure when) TDF requested contributions be made under both LGPLv3 and MPLv2 in the hope of future relicensing, and invited Oracle to participate. Oracle donates OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an Oracle employee following ASF policy. IBM donates OpenSymphony to the ASF relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an IBM employee following ASF policy. The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony code. Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all the source as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady although permitted. In effect this prevents LO updates from being contributed back to AOO. I doubt TDF could have integrated all the contributions to LO it received under LGPLv3 and MPLv2 any other way. That is the sequence. One could ask on LO lists why they did this, but all we know here is what happens here. Some say it is more fun to develop LO. Others like Patricia and I like the benefits of consuming AL2 software as opposed to GPL. Certainly TDF likes to consume AL2 software. The license a community uses is an expression of its outlook and norms. Apache and TDF have differing outlooks (although they have remarkably similar governance) so it's no surprise their license choices differ as well. I'd hesitate to declare either Apache or TDF's choices as better for everything and consequently have advocated for both at various times. Cheers, S. (speaking here only as an AOO community member) Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > Thanks for the correction. > >> On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote: >> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html >> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache >> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011, >> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010. >> >> An article about this: >> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with -openoffice-update/ >> >> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta: >>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia >>> >>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : >>> > On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 under the same license. Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. Please let's not try to rewrite history. -- Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will never be read. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe,
Re: future of OpenOffice
Please correct the specific non Apache licenses if I get them wrong. As far as I know the sequence of events is: Oracle buys Sun including OpenOffice (closed license) and the open source OpenOffice.org (GPL2). TheDocumentFoundation forms and forks OpenOffice.org as LibreOffice under GPL2 Oracle donates OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an Oracle employee following ASF policy. IBM donates OpenSymphony to the ASF relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an IBM employee following ASF policy. The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony code. Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all the source as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady although permitted. In effect this prevents LO updates from being contributed back to AOO. That is the sequence. One could ask on LO lists why they did this, but all we know here is what happens here. Some say it is more fun to develop LO. Others like Patricia and I like the benefits of consuming AL2 software as opposed to GPL. Certainly TDF likes to consume AL2 software. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > Thanks for the correction. > >> On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote: >> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html >> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache >> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011, >> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010. >> >> An article about this: >> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/ >> >> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta: >>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia >>> >>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : >>> > On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 under the same license. Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. Please let's not try to rewrite history. -- Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will never be read. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Thanks for the correction. On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote: https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011, but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010. An article about this: http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/ 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta: See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: Hi, it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be merged in OpenOffice. That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 under the same license. Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. Please let's not try to rewrite history. -- Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will never be read. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
On 12.01.2017 16:54, RA Stehmann wrote: > Is the past on topic for the future? Assuming that you are responding to my post in this thread, the answer to your question is no. My post was nothing more than a simple correction of Patricia's seemingly mistaken idea that the original LO code came from AOO under ALv2, which would have been impossible, because AOO did not exist when LO forked from OOo in September 2010. > Is a dogmatist a good pontifex? I understand the convoluted words of your rhetorical question, but the point you are attempting to make eludes me. > Regards > Michael Regards Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Nagy, I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely irrelevant to me. What IS relevant is the way the software works. So, please, can you tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do? I recently was given a 30,000 row excel sheet to read into a database so that I could use it with a Java front end. LO choked (version 5.2.2.2 on Linux), OO (version 4.1.2 on same machine) opened it perfectly and gave me a progress bar to indicate it was working. In my experience the LO writer user interface sucks -- badly. In my experience the LO calc interface has become almost as annoying as the MS Excel interface. And now, I hear, they are going to add that stupid "ribon" thingy to be even more annoying and counter-productive. So code quantity or quality aside, what can LO do for me as a common user? The Google "trend" you point to seems to indicate that people in Brazil and Arabia can't figure out how to use LOsays nothing about OO as far as I can tell except that OO is easier to use since the rest of the world isn't asking as many questions about it. Thanks for any insight you can provide. On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote: > I wrote something that is not true? > About the trends: > https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice > > >
Re: future of OpenOffice
Is the past on topic for the future? Is a dogmatist a good pontifex? Regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011, but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010. An article about this: http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/ 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta: > See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia > > 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : > >> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: Hi, it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be merged in OpenOffice. >>> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier >>> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have >>> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. >> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: >> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ >> >> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 >> under the same license. >> >> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the >> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. >> >> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of >> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked >> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. >> >> Please let's not try to rewrite history. >> >> -- >> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to >> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will >> never be read. >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : > On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be > >> merged in OpenOffice. > > > > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier > > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have > > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. > > The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: > https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ > > In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 > under the same license. > > Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the > ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. > > In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of > the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked > from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. > > Please let's not try to rewrite history. > > -- > Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to > this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will > never be read. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
FOSDEM 2017 Open Source Conference - Brussels
Hello Everyone This email is to tell you about ASF participation at FOSDEM. The event will be held in Brussels on 4^th & 5^th February 2017 and we are hoping that many people from our ASF projects will be there. https://fosdem.org/2017/ Attending FOSDEM is completely free and the ASF will again be running a booth there. Our main focus will on talking to people about the ASF, our projects and communities. *_Why Attend FOSDEM?_* Some reasons for attending FOSDEM are: 1. Promoting your project: FOSDEM has up to 4-5000 attendees so is a great place to spread the word about your project 2. Learning, participating and meeting up: FOSDEM is a developers conference so includes presentations covering a range of technologies and includes lots of topic specific devrooms _*FOSDEM Wiki *_ A page on the Community Development wiki has been created with the main details about our involvement at conference, so please take a look https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/FOSDEM+2017 If you would like to spend some time on the ASF booth promoting your project then please sign up on the FOSDEM wiki page. Initially we would like to split this into slots of 3-4 hours but this will depend on the number of projects that are represented. We are also looking for volunteers to help out on the booth over the 2 days of the conference, so if you are going to be there and are willing to help then please add your name to the volunteer list. _*Project Stickers*_ If you are going to be at FOSDEM and do not have any project stickers to give away then we may (budget permitting) be able to help you get some printed. Please contact me with your requirements. _*Social Event*_ Some people have asked about organising an ASF social event / meetup during the conference. This is possible but we will need know how many people are interested and which date works best. The FOSDEM wiki page also contains an 'Arrival / Departure' section so so please add your details if you would like to participate. I hope this helps people see some of the advantages of attending FOSDEM and we are looking forward to seeing lots of people there from our ASF communities. Thanks Sharan Apache Community Development http://community.apache.org/
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Hi Peter If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the Permissive license can be the stronger choice. I do not believe that a lot of people understand this. Can you elaborate on this point? I don't really see how using a copyleftless license is better when your business "works directly with the Product". I see it as altruistic (like copyleft is communistic) but as a business model, I really don't see how it is a "stronger choice". Using a copyleftless license allows anyone else to build exactly the same product. Regards, Pedro - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org