Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Hi Mathias, So - since you want to kill the thread, lets try to do that; but first I must address this: On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 23:48 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: What makes you think it could be anything else? Wow, how easy it is to get some public interest. It's enough to give others some reasons to cultivate their paranoia. How many licensees are there of our code in OO.o, and under what terms ? without knowing that, it's really hard to say; that is my point. Clearly I would hope and expect that (in the absence of a compelling commercial reason to do otherwise), Sun would act in a way to safeguard the OO.o project, ensure that code changes get back up-stream under the LGPL etc. Novell even states explicitly that this is the reason why they ask for a copyright assignment. As does Sun. Whether Novell already does business like that (Michael calls it ripping off people's code) is something I don't care for. It's amazing the concern that is suddenly shown for code that was not written or contributed by Sun, or you, or me :-) I'm interested in the relevant code for this forum: that contributed to OpenOffice; rather than some wider discussion about Java, OpenSolaris, NetBeans [ or whatever ]. Presumably each project can decide for itself. Let me clarify ripping off, since that unfortunately ended up seeming offensive to you. I would personally feel ripped off, if my code ended up in a commercial product, which clearly had modified improved that code, and where the improvements were not available to all under the LGPL, in OO.o. I just would like to stop this stupid discussion started by Michael's ridiculous idea that Sun would make business with a company like butler office. I still can't believe that this is really what he thinks. This would have been an effective end-thread, as a #1 reply :-) Unfortunately, reading back, it looks as if: before Martin checked with the lawyers and confirmed that you did not have such a relationship (thanks Martin), you argument was framed only in defense of Sun's right to re-license our code under any terms :-) It's good to see the principle laid out clearly: that Sun will not deal with Butler-alikes, that it would be ridiculous to do so I welcome that couldn't agree more. Regards, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] [Calc] Data pilot from OLAP data
Andreas Saeger wrote: What are the preconditions to create a data pilot from OLAP data as suggested by the disabled third option in the first pilot dialog and in the online help: Help called from Select source dialog: External source/interface Opens the External Source dialog where you can select the OLAP data source for the DataPilot table. That third option is enabled if you have an implementation of the UNO service com.sun.star.sheet.DataPilotSource, for example from an extension. It's then up to that extension to provide the results. It could use an OLAP server, but I'm not aware of an extension that actually does so. Niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Michael Meeks wrote: So - since you want to kill the thread, lets try to do that; but first I must address this: I don't want to kill the thread - I'm not even empowered to do that. :-) Please see at the end of the mail what I wanted to see stopped. Unfortunately, reading back, it looks as if: before Martin checked with the lawyers and confirmed that you did not have such a relationship (thanks Martin), you argument was framed only in defense of Sun's right to re-license our code under any terms :-) It's good to see the principle laid out clearly: that Sun will not deal with Butler-alikes, that it would be ridiculous to do so I welcome that couldn't agree more. As you brought me in context I must add something here. I can't speak for Sun in a legal meaning - so can't Martin. That's the reason why he checked back with Sun Legal, just to be able to give a definitive answer (as this was asked for). I didn't say that I don't believe that Sun would relicence the code under any terms. Of course that is possible in the same way as Novell does with Mono. And Sun does mention that on the SCA FAQ page as I quoted in one of my mails. So does Novell on the Mono contribution page. I absolutely understand if people take this fact as a reason not to contribute. For me that wouldn't be a problem. If a company gave me the opportunity to get some useful open source software and adjust it to my needs I would gladly accept that wonderful opportunity and contribute my code back. That would be my thank you for the huge amount of work that the company already had invested and that gives me a benefit. Unfortunately I'm not interested enough in e.g. Mono to proove that ;-), so you must take my word for it. I hope that is enough. Of course, as always, YMMV. Or better: we know that your mileage varies. You told it to us all too often to overlook that. Insinuating a participation of Sun in the case of Butler office really is ridiculous. *That* is the stupid part of the thread I would like to see stopped. The rest might still be boring, as it presents the same arguments we heard days, weeks or months ago (and probably we will also hear days, weeks and months later), but that's life. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Allen Pulsifer wrote: What I would like to consider common sense tells me that of course you continue to be the owner of the code you contributed, Caolan continues to be the owner of the code he contributed... Apparently you have not read the terms of the copyright assignment. I think Frank is talking about http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf section 2: 2. Contributor hereby assigns to Sun _joint_ ownership ... Contributor retains the right to use the Contribution for Contributor's own purposes. ... what is your point here ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
What I would like to consider common sense tells me that of course you continue to be the owner of the code you contributed, Caolan continues to be the owner of the code he contributed... Apparently you have not read the terms of the copyright assignment. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
2. yes, FSF doesn't accept e.g. non-paper-worked contributions to free software it maintains, e.g. Emacs. The obvious point, if we must belabor it, is that an organization like FSF would never take an open source program to which it held an assigned copyright and re-license it under a commercial license. The FSF's intentions and practices are very different from Sun's. Sun is explicitly asking for copyright assignment so that it can re-license the contributions under a commercial license to anyone it chooses. Many potential contributors would consider assigning copyright to a foundation such as FSF to be very different than assigning copyright to a corporation such as Sun for their commercial use. For that reason, comparisons between Sun's practices and the FSF's practices, or comparison to the practices of any similar non-profit or foundation such as the Apache Project, etc., are not very relevant and are in fact misleading, IMPO. Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-) Three month ago or so we had more or less the same discussion. I thought the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun would misuse the copyright. Thank you for that clarification, Juergen.Schmidt of Sun.com If I or anyone else wants to discuss this topic, we will, regardless of your opinion Not-As-A-Sun-Employee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Allen Pulsifer wrote (7-2-2008 22:48) the means you are using to change the situation (flooding dev@ list with offtopic) are wrong. There is nothing off-topic about this discussion. It is highly relevant to every developer who is not also an employee of Sun Microsystems. Hmm, I always thought it is in the interest of every community member that the project flourishes, is well guided. If Novell wants more influence, there may be good reasons for it. If things for OpenOffice.org continue to evolve like they do the last years, it might be very good for the project, that there comes a change in leadership. But I am not in a position to judge. And only reading 'arguments' in favour of changes, won't help me nor anyone else. Even more so, because the arguments I saw, often were build upon suspension, nitpicking, turning around. Changes, I expect, are most likely to grow on a sort of trust and understanding. Decisions on this route will not come from this list, and the discussion we saw here, is not likely to stimulate it. So yes: wrong words, wrong place. Regards, Cor -- The Year of 3 -2008- Het jaar van 3 Cor Nouws Arnhem - Netherlands - nl.OpenOffice.org - marketing contact - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [Calc] Data pilot from OLAP data
Niklas Nebel wrote: That third option is enabled if you have an implementation of the UNO service com.sun.star.sheet.DataPilotSource, for example from an extension. It's then up to that extension to provide the results. It could use an OLAP server, but I'm not aware of an extension that actually does so. Niklas Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
The intent is not to mislead, but present the reality. I would argue that talk of Joint, and Shared in copyright assignments (by contrast) is to market the unpleasant fact with meaningless friendly sounding terms :-) ie. the plain truth is perhaps not quite as obvious as you suggest. I would agree with that statement. Joint Copyright is just for show. In practice, a contributor would have the right to use the code under the LGPL anyway, and if the code is derived from OOo, would have no rights to distribute the code except on the LGPL. The only right added by the Joint Copyright is the right to sue for copyright violation, which is again, not a right that will probably ever be put into practice. In summary, the Joint Copyright does not add any useful rights that the contributor would not otherwise have, and is therefore just for show. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
the means you are using to change the situation (flooding dev@ list with offtopic) are wrong. There is nothing off-topic about this discussion. It is highly relevant to every developer who is not also an employee of Sun Microsystems. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Hi, i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-) Three month ago or so we had more or less the same discussion. I thought the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun would misuse the copyright. The Butler office issue is addressed and the lawyers are working on it. Martin will be so kind to keep us updated ... This thread brings no new infos to the topic and i think we are all aware of the facts. The thread is only boring and useless ... All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation doesn't change. Juergen Allen Pulsifer wrote: The intent is not to mislead, but present the reality. I would argue that talk of Joint, and Shared in copyright assignments (by contrast) is to market the unpleasant fact with meaningless friendly sounding terms :-) ie. the plain truth is perhaps not quite as obvious as you suggest. I would agree with that statement. Joint Copyright is just for show. In practice, a contributor would have the right to use the code under the LGPL anyway, and if the code is derived from OOo, would have no rights to distribute the code except on the LGPL. The only right added by the Joint Copyright is the right to sue for copyright violation, which is again, not a right that will probably ever be put into practice. In summary, the Joint Copyright does not add any useful rights that the contributor would not otherwise have, and is therefore just for show. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
On 7.2.2008, at 23:47, Allen Pulsifer wrote: i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-) Three month ago or so we had more or less the same discussion. I thought the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun would misuse the copyright. Thank you for that clarification, Juergen.Schmidt of Sun.com I also thank Juergen for the clarification. And (unlike you) understand how he meant it. And I agree with him. I see that Allen wants to continue in developing the project and product, so please everyone lets Allen do it... -- Pavel Janík - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
