Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
PROPOSAL: Remove the page link from the sidebar, so that the controversial page is no longer reachable from other pages on the site. Do this in all languages having the page. We can then continue this discussion about the page itself, whether it is to be recast in some manner, whether the disclaimer from ASF goes on the top (sort of like a Wikipedia warning) or not, or whether to replace it with a tombstone that refers to some ASF policy page or other flat-footed description of how the Foundation views the variety of open-source license and development models in consistency with its commitment to operation in the public interest. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:23 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Spam (11.08):Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions. I think we need to rewrite or remove the page. We can talk about the permissive AL. We can suggest that people do their own research and/or seek their own counsel. We could even offer a google link. If we have a vote then here is my +1 to make a change as we should not be offering this type of advice. I write this as an Apache Member and AOO PMC. Rob if you think differently then you ought to be engaging other Apache Members in this discussion. Regards, Dave [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
Am 02/19/2015 08:38 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Marcus wrote: I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it hopefully clear what it is. At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are discussing in circles: - Who is it that do not like the content? - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? In other words, there is no consensus yet. Even the disclaimer itself represents the opinion of individuals and not the view of the PMC. you have the right to change it. Patches are welcome. ;-) Marcus Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: " *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses."* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Marcus wrote: > I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as > every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. > > > > As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too > aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer > to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it > hopefully clear what it is. > > At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. > > But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are > discussing in circles: > > - Who is it that do not like the content? > - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? > - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? > In other words, there is no consensus yet. Even the disclaimer itself represents the opinion of individuals and not the view of the PMC. -Rob > Thanks > > Marcus > > > > Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: > >> Hi. >> >> We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which >> seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. >> >> There are of course people who do not like the page because they would >> like >> another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as >> the page we produce are correct). >> >> There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily >> be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. >> >> The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has >> been added: >> " >> >> *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or >> advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of >> licenses."* >> Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion >> of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer >> and being on the bottom many do not even read it. >> >> We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should >> we >> have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to >> the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk >> about >> a lot of mails). >> >> I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of >> discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on >> top of the page saying something like: >> "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" >> would at least stop the negative discussions. >> >> >> Thoughts? > > > - > 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: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
Am 02/19/2015 08:29 PM, schrieb jan i: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus wrote: I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it hopefully clear what it is. At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. THANKS. But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are discussing in circles: - Who is it that do not like the content? among others jim who is v.p. legal and talk on behalf of the foundation in this case myself OK, you both are new. And (as I learned now) just after Mr. Kuhn made a mistake. But who else? Also before Kuhn's blog post? Sorry when I bother you all. But I don't get it that we are writing tons of mails about some words on a webpage. - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? not a lot, but point is v.p. legal of apache feel we break rules, and that os more important than the numbers Sure, Jim may have a special voice/vote here. ;-) - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? I think (renark the word) that it is because we compare licences. ASF At large do not do this kind of comparing, and definitively not at project level. OK, when we can nail it down to 1-2 text parts then delete them (or better choose a wording in a more neutral form) and that's it - except it would break the whole concept. rob@ I am +1 on calling a vote, but I eould realky prefer we could settle this without, a vote builds fronts and we need a lot more to work together. I suggest: [ ] Leave the page as it is. [ ] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. [ ] Delete the entire page. I have offered 2 solutions, including being very flexible in the wording of the disclaimer, I will leave it up to you to either call a vote or work with us all to find a solution. Please suggest a compromise, that satisfies people like jim (in short keep ASF happy) and is something you can accept. i am easy, if ASF is happy I am happy. Marcus Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: " *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses."* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:29 PM, jan i wrote: > On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus wrote: > >> I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use >> as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. >> >> >> >> As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too >> aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer >> to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it >> hopefully clear what it is. >> >> At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. > > THANKS. > > >> >> But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we >> are discussing in circles: >> >> - Who is it that do not like the content? > > among others > jim who is v.p. legal and talk on behalf of the foundation in this case > myself > >> - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? > > not a lot, but point is v.p. legal of apache feel we break rules, and that > os more important than the numbers > >> - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? > > I think (renark the word) that it is because we compare licences. ASF At > large do not do this kind of comparing, and definitively not at project > level. > > > rob@ I am +1 on calling a vote, but I eould realky prefer we could settle > this without, a vote builds fronts and we need a lot more to work together. > > I have offered 2 solutions, including being very flexible in the wording of > the disclaimer, I will leave it up to you to either call a vote or work > with us all to find a solution. > If there is consensus on the disclaimer then I'm fine with that. If someone has a better way of arguing the benefits of ALv2 in this context, then that's fine as well. My -1 is only on "let's just delete Rob's work because I'm annoyed by too many emails about it". And, as I've said, I'll accept the results of a PMC vote over my veto. And needless to say, my veto on deletion implies my willingness to help implement an alternative approach, if we can agree on what would be acceptable. -Rob > Please suggest a compromise, that satisfies people like jim (in short keep > ASF happy) and is something you can accept. i am easy, if ASF is happy I am > happy. > > tgds > jan i > > > >> Thanks >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: >> >>> Hi. >>> >>> We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which >>> seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. >>> >>> There are of course people who do not like the page because they would >>> like >>> another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as >>> the page we produce are correct). >>> >>> There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily >>> be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. >>> >>> The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has >>> been added: >>> " >>> >>> *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or >>> advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of >>> licenses."* >>> Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion >>> of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer >>> and being on the bottom many do not even read it. >>> >>> We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should >>> we >>> have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to >>> the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk >>> about >>> a lot of mails). >>> >>> I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of >>> discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on >>> top of the page saying something like: >>> "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" >>> would at least stop the negative discussions. >>> >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > > -- > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus wrote: > I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use > as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. > > > > As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too > aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer > to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it > hopefully clear what it is. > > At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. THANKS. > > But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we > are discussing in circles: > > - Who is it that do not like the content? among others jim who is v.p. legal and talk on behalf of the foundation in this case myself > - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? not a lot, but point is v.p. legal of apache feel we break rules, and that os more important than the numbers > - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? I think (renark the word) that it is because we compare licences. ASF At large do not do this kind of comparing, and definitively not at project level. rob@ I am +1 on calling a vote, but I eould realky prefer we could settle this without, a vote builds fronts and we need a lot more to work together. I have offered 2 solutions, including being very flexible in the wording of the disclaimer, I will leave it up to you to either call a vote or work with us all to find a solution. Please suggest a compromise, that satisfies people like jim (in short keep ASF happy) and is something you can accept. i am easy, if ASF is happy I am happy. tgds jan i > Thanks > > Marcus > > > > Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: > >> Hi. >> >> We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which >> seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. >> >> There are of course people who do not like the page because they would >> like >> another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as >> the page we produce are correct). >> >> There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily >> be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. >> >> The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has >> been added: >> " >> >> *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or >> advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of >> licenses."* >> Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion >> of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer >> and being on the bottom many do not even read it. >> >> We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should >> we >> have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to >> the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk >> about >> a lot of mails). >> >> I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of >> discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on >> top of the page saying something like: >> "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" >> would at least stop the negative discussions. >> >> >> Thoughts? >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
I think we need to rewrite or remove the page. We can talk about the permissive AL. We can suggest that people do their own research and/or seek their own counsel. We could even offer a google link. If we have a vote then here is my +1 to make a change as we should not be offering this type of advice. I write this as an Apache Member and AOO PMC. Rob if you think differently then you ought to be engaging other Apache Members in this discussion. Regards, Dave On Feb 19, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote: > I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as > every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. > > > > As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too > aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer > to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it > hopefully clear what it is. > > At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. > > But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are > discussing in circles: > > - Who is it that do not like the content? > - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? > - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? > > Thanks > > Marcus > > > > Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: >> Hi. >> >> We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which >> seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. >> >> There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like >> another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as >> the page we produce are correct). >> >> There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily >> be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. >> >> The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has >> been added: >> " >> >> *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or >> advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of >> licenses."* >> Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion >> of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer >> and being on the bottom many do not even read it. >> >> We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we >> have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to >> the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about >> a lot of mails). >> >> I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of >> discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on >> top of the page saying something like: >> "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" >> would at least stop the negative discussions. >> >> >> Thoughts? > > - > 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: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it hopefully clear what it is. At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are discussing in circles: - Who is it that do not like the content? - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? Thanks Marcus Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: " *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses."* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i wrote: > On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i wrote: >> > On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps >> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more >> >> >> agreeable content on it. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > That sounds smart to me, +1. >> >> > >> >> > I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] >> >> "misrepresentation" - >> >> > maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? >> >> >> > Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private >> > lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. >> > >> > My recommendation follow that advice. >> > >> >> I'm a PMC member as well. I trust my -1 has been noted. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Hi Simon, >> >> >> >> Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed >> >> project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. >> >> Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely >> >> it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice >> >> out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your >> >> personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And >> >> how can we best express these benefits to potential users? >> >> >> >> Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it >> is ! >> > >> > I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top >> could >> > look like. >> > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" >> > >> >> >> I assumed that was a placeholder. Abbreviations like "ASF" and "AOO" >> and "PMC" will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the >> abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what >> the PMC is, how they relate, etc. This is a kind of disclaimer that >> causes more confusion. >> >> I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page >> but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context. >> Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search >> (Google or Bing). Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing >> in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it >> without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works. So I think any >> disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them. >> > > you might be right that my proposal is not the best one, but to have a > proposal is better that not have any, and I am not touchy about other > wordings. > I appreciate that. I'm just saying 1) We don't have a statement ready to drop in yet and 2) We probably want to get it into final form before doing so since it will need translation. > I am not a license specialist nor do I want to be, but I think our project > should not talk about other licenses, let others do that. > > Apart from that, ASF and not AOO is the one who decides on licenses, so > that would be the right place to have such a page. > But from what I understand from a number of conversations, ASF tries by > principle not to talk a lot about others, f.x. you will not find > an ASF page that compares different foundations and the ASF page about > licenses explain how ALv2 works nothing more. > > I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation > course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically > for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other > projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF > believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. > Clearly there is disagreement on this question and we've seen views on both sides, including PMC members. Considering we're no longer debating facts but opinions, maybe just start a 72-hour PMC vote on whether to delete the page. I'd accept the results of the vote, even over my -1. Regards, -Rob > rgds > jan I. > > >> >> -Rob >> >> >> > rgds >> > jan I. >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> -Rob >> >> >> >> > S. >> >> > >> >> > [1]: >> >> > >> >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E >> >> >> >> - >> >> 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...@openoffic
RE: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
+1 on change or removal It is perhaps more useful to follow the thread view of the conversation that resumed today on the legal-discuss mailing list, <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/thread>. Some suggestions have been voiced there too. Anyone can also follow that list via the web archive or subscribing. It is all available to the public. Observers might also be interested in knowing who the participants on that thread happen to be in addition to those whose voices are known on this dev@ list. This <http://apache.org/foundation/> may be helpful in terms of the Board composition and the Corporate Officers (listed before all of the PMC chairs). I have already made my views known on this topic and I will not repeat them. I do suggest that the continuing effort to rationalize that page and to consider it a compendium of essential facts that AOO and even ASF has some duty to present is a case of "fighting way above our own weight" and it would be very good to stop twisting the wound and remove that thorn in some suitable manner. Officials of the ASF have made it clear that this page does not reflect views of the ASF and that its posture is objectionable. For those expressing pique over it being a topic on legal-discuss at all, I am mindful that AOO exists at the pleasure of the ASF, not the reverse, and that alignment of projects with how the ASF sees its public-interest duty to be fulfilled is a very big deal, AOO-exceptionalism notwithstanding. This project is accountable, via its PMC and through its Chair, for demonstrating and preserving that alignment. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 08:39 To: dev Subject: Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more > agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] "misrepresentation" - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? S. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i wrote: > On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i wrote: >> > On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps >> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more >> >> >> agreeable content on it. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > That sounds smart to me, +1. >> >> > >> >> > I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] >> >> "misrepresentation" - >> >> > maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? >> >> >> > Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private >> > lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. >> > >> > My recommendation follow that advice. >> > >> >> I'm a PMC member as well. I trust my -1 has been noted. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Hi Simon, >> >> >> >> Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed >> >> project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. >> >> Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely >> >> it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice >> >> out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your >> >> personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And >> >> how can we best express these benefits to potential users? >> >> >> >> Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it >> is ! >> > >> > I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top >> could >> > look like. >> > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" >> > >> >> >> I assumed that was a placeholder. Abbreviations like "ASF" and "AOO" >> and "PMC" will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the >> abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what >> the PMC is, how they relate, etc. This is a kind of disclaimer that >> causes more confusion. >> >> I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page >> but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context. >> Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search >> (Google or Bing). Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing >> in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it >> without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works. So I think any >> disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them. >> > > you might be right that my proposal is not the best one, but to have a > proposal is better that not have any, and I am not touchy about other > wordings. > > I am not a license specialist nor do I want to be, but I think our project > should not talk about other licenses, let others do that. > > Apart from that, ASF and not AOO is the one who decides on licenses, so > that would be the right place to have such a page. > But from what I understand from a number of conversations, ASF tries by > principle not to talk a lot about others, f.x. you will not find > an ASF page that compares different foundations and the ASF page about > licenses explain how ALv2 works nothing more. > > I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation > course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically > for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other > projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF > believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. fwiw, as a lurker here, that approach is much more consistent with the broader culture around here. Leave the provocative stuff to personal blogs and media. I think a good solution is to just delete the page and add a link to the faq[1] to your existing 'free' page[2] - I just don't see any value beyond what's already written between those two. Thanks, --tim [1] - http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN [2] - http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_free.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i wrote: > > On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps > wrote: > >> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more > >> >> agreeable content on it. > >> > > >> > > >> > That sounds smart to me, +1. > >> > > >> > I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] > >> "misrepresentation" - > >> > maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? > >> > > Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private > > lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. > > > > My recommendation follow that advice. > > > > I'm a PMC member as well. I trust my -1 has been noted. > > > > >> > > >> > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed > >> project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. > >> Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely > >> it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice > >> out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your > >> personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And > >> how can we best express these benefits to potential users? > >> > >> Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it > is ! > > > > I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top > could > > look like. > > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" > > > > > I assumed that was a placeholder. Abbreviations like "ASF" and "AOO" > and "PMC" will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the > abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what > the PMC is, how they relate, etc. This is a kind of disclaimer that > causes more confusion. > > I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page > but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context. > Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search > (Google or Bing). Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing > in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it > without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works. So I think any > disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them. > you might be right that my proposal is not the best one, but to have a proposal is better that not have any, and I am not touchy about other wordings. I am not a license specialist nor do I want to be, but I think our project should not talk about other licenses, let others do that. Apart from that, ASF and not AOO is the one who decides on licenses, so that would be the right place to have such a page. But from what I understand from a number of conversations, ASF tries by principle not to talk a lot about others, f.x. you will not find an ASF page that compares different foundations and the ASF page about licenses explain how ALv2 works nothing more. I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. rgds jan I. > > -Rob > > > > rgds > > jan I. > > > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> -Rob > >> > >> > S. > >> > > >> > [1]: > >> > > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E > >> > >> - > >> 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: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i wrote: > On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado >> wrote: >> > >> >> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more >> >> agreeable content on it. >> > >> > >> > That sounds smart to me, +1. >> > >> > I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] >> "misrepresentation" - >> > maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? >> > Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private > lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. > > My recommendation follow that advice. > I'm a PMC member as well. I trust my -1 has been noted. > >> > >> >> Hi Simon, >> >> Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed >> project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. >> Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely >> it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice >> out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your >> personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And >> how can we best express these benefits to potential users? >> >> Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it is ! > > I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top could > look like. > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" > I assumed that was a placeholder. Abbreviations like "ASF" and "AOO" and "PMC" will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what the PMC is, how they relate, etc. This is a kind of disclaimer that causes more confusion. I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context. Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search (Google or Bing). Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works. So I think any disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them. -Rob > rgds > jan I. > >> >> Thanks! >> >> -Rob >> >> > S. >> > >> > [1]: >> > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E >> >> - >> 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: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado > wrote: > > > >> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more > >> agreeable content on it. > > > > > > That sounds smart to me, +1. > > > > I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] > "misrepresentation" - > > maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? > Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. My recommendation follow that advice. > > > > Hi Simon, > > Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed > project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. > Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely > it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice > out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your > personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And > how can we best express these benefits to potential users? > > Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it is ! I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top could look like. "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" rgds jan I. > > Thanks! > > -Rob > > > S. > > > > [1]: > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > >> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more >> agreeable content on it. > > > That sounds smart to me, +1. > > I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] "misrepresentation" - > maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? > Hi Simon, Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And how can we best express these benefits to potential users? Thanks! -Rob > S. > > [1]: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i wrote: >> > On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote: >> >> > Hi. >> >> > >> >> > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html >> which >> >> > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. >> >> > >> >> > There are of course people who do not like the page because they would >> >> like >> >> > another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as >> long as >> >> > the page we produce are correct). >> >> > >> >> > There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too >> >> easily >> >> > be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. >> >> > >> >> > The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom >> has >> >> > been added: >> >> > " >> >> > >> >> > *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, >> recommend or >> >> > advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or >> family of >> >> > licenses."* >> >> > Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the >> >> opinion >> >> > of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal >> disclaimer >> >> > and being on the bottom many do not even read it. >> >> > >> >> > We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor >> should >> >> we >> >> > have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot >> refer to >> >> > the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk >> >> about >> >> > a lot of mails). >> >> > >> >> > I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this >> kind of >> >> > discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a >> statement on >> >> > top of the page saying something like: >> >> > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" >> >> > would at least stop the negative discussions. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> > >> >> >> >> What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? >> >> Maybe we can focus on the specifics? >> >> >> >> I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same >> >> accusation can be made. For example: >> >> >> >> "OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries." >> >> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html >> >> >> >> Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC >> >> voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? >> >> >> >> >> >> And: >> >> >> >> "Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best >> >> value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its >> >> open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no >> >> expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with >> >> onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the >> >> software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any >> >> other channel of your choice." >> >> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html >> >> >> >> Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this >> >> case to government users. >> >> >> >> >> >> And: >> >> >> >> >> >> And >> >> >> >> "OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial >> >> office software, but with none of the costs or license worries." >> >> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html >> >> >> >> >> >> Same idea there. >> >> >> >> >> >> And >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html >> >> >> >> This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an >> >> opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should >> >> we remove this page as well? >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or >> >> touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be >> >> odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects >> >> is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use >> >> in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to >> >> note that. >> >> >> > >> > To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and >> > know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression, >> > not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed. >> > >> > When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look >> > myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being >> > the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom >> line >> > carefully. >> > >> > I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really >> > not the discussion point. >> > >> > We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not >> > need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a >> > s
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more > agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] "misrepresentation" - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? S. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i wrote: > > On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote: > >> > Hi. > >> > > >> > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html > which > >> > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. > >> > > >> > There are of course people who do not like the page because they would > >> like > >> > another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as > long as > >> > the page we produce are correct). > >> > > >> > There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too > >> easily > >> > be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. > >> > > >> > The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom > has > >> > been added: > >> > " > >> > > >> > *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, > recommend or > >> > advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or > family of > >> > licenses."* > >> > Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the > >> opinion > >> > of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal > disclaimer > >> > and being on the bottom many do not even read it. > >> > > >> > We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor > should > >> we > >> > have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot > refer to > >> > the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk > >> about > >> > a lot of mails). > >> > > >> > I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this > kind of > >> > discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a > statement on > >> > top of the page saying something like: > >> > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" > >> > would at least stop the negative discussions. > >> > > >> > > >> > Thoughts? > >> > > >> > >> What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? > >> Maybe we can focus on the specifics? > >> > >> I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same > >> accusation can be made. For example: > >> > >> "OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries." > >> > >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html > >> > >> Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC > >> voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? > >> > >> > >> And: > >> > >> "Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best > >> value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its > >> open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no > >> expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with > >> onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the > >> software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any > >> other channel of your choice." > >> > >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html > >> > >> Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this > >> case to government users. > >> > >> > >> And: > >> > >> > >> And > >> > >> "OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial > >> office software, but with none of the costs or license worries." > >> > >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html > >> > >> > >> Same idea there. > >> > >> > >> And > >> > >> > >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html > >> > >> This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an > >> opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should > >> we remove this page as well? > >> > >> > >> I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or > >> touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be > >> odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects > >> is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use > >> in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to > >> note that. > >> > > > > To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and > > know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression, > > not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed. > > > > When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look > > myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being > > the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom > line > > carefully. > > > > I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really > > not the discussion point. > > > > We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not > > need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a > > simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and > > act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do. > > > > The current disclaimer was added after a discussion
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i wrote: > On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote: >> > Hi. >> > >> > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which >> > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. >> > >> > There are of course people who do not like the page because they would >> like >> > another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as >> > the page we produce are correct). >> > >> > There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too >> easily >> > be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. >> > >> > The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has >> > been added: >> > " >> > >> > *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or >> > advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of >> > licenses."* >> > Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the >> opinion >> > of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer >> > and being on the bottom many do not even read it. >> > >> > We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should >> we >> > have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to >> > the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk >> about >> > a lot of mails). >> > >> > I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of >> > discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on >> > top of the page saying something like: >> > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" >> > would at least stop the negative discussions. >> > >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> >> What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? >> Maybe we can focus on the specifics? >> >> I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same >> accusation can be made. For example: >> >> "OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries." >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html >> >> Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC >> voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? >> >> >> And: >> >> "Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best >> value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its >> open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no >> expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with >> onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the >> software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any >> other channel of your choice." >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html >> >> Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this >> case to government users. >> >> >> And: >> >> >> And >> >> "OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial >> office software, but with none of the costs or license worries." >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html >> >> >> Same idea there. >> >> >> And >> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html >> >> This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an >> opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should >> we remove this page as well? >> >> >> I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or >> touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be >> odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects >> is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use >> in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to >> note that. >> > > To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and > know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression, > not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed. > > When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look > myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being > the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom line > carefully. > > I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really > not the discussion point. > > We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not > need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a > simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and > act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do. > The current disclaimer was added after a discussion on the legal-discuss mailing list (public) to make it clear that it was not an ASF statement. As I understand it is now entirely a PMC question and there is no one who will "tell us what to do". > >> So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages. If you want a more >> prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote: > > Hi. > > > > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which > > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. > > > > There are of course people who do not like the page because they would > like > > another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as > > the page we produce are correct). > > > > There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too > easily > > be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. > > > > The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has > > been added: > > " > > > > *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or > > advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of > > licenses."* > > Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the > opinion > > of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer > > and being on the bottom many do not even read it. > > > > We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should > we > > have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to > > the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk > about > > a lot of mails). > > > > I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of > > discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on > > top of the page saying something like: > > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" > > would at least stop the negative discussions. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? > Maybe we can focus on the specifics? > > I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same > accusation can be made. For example: > > "OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries." > > http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html > > Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC > voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? > > > And: > > "Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best > value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its > open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no > expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with > onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the > software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any > other channel of your choice." > > http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html > > Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this > case to government users. > > > And: > > > And > > "OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial > office software, but with none of the costs or license worries." > > http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html > > > Same idea there. > > > And > > > http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html > > This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an > opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should > we remove this page as well? > > > I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or > touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be > odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects > is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use > in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to > note that. > To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression, not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed. When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom line carefully. I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really not the discussion point. We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do. > So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages. If you want a more > prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine with that. > I have no opinion on that the *all* part, if you think that gives a better result then I am all for it. rgds jan I. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > > rgds > > jan I. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
I saw no confusion in the article and I enjoyed it But it is odd that the page exists there of it is an unrelated opinion piece. That said, of it is indicating a reason the license fire AOO is desirable, that is different. On Feb 19, 2015 10:10 AM, jan i wrote: > > Hi. > > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. > > There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like > another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as > the page we produce are correct). > > There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily > be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. > > The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has > been added: > " > > *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or > advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of > licenses."* > Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion > of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer > and being on the bottom many do not even read it. > > We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we > have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to > the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about > a lot of mails). > > I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of > discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on > top of the page saying something like: > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" > would at least stop the negative discussions. > > > Thoughts? > > rgds > jan I. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote: > Hi. > > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. > > There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like > another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as > the page we produce are correct). > > There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily > be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. > > The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has > been added: > " > > *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or > advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of > licenses."* > Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion > of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer > and being on the bottom many do not even read it. > > We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we > have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to > the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about > a lot of mails). > > I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of > discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on > top of the page saying something like: > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" > would at least stop the negative discussions. > > > Thoughts? > What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? Maybe we can focus on the specifics? I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same accusation can be made. For example: "OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries." http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? And: "Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any other channel of your choice." http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this case to government users. And: And "OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial office software, but with none of the costs or license worries." http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html Same idea there. And http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to note that. So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages. If you want a more prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine with that. Regards, -Rob > rgds > jan I. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: " *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses."* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? rgds jan I.
