RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:51 +0100, Juergen Schmidt wrote: The project simply don't need people like you who has probably never contributed one line of code but are very good in this kind of useless discussion. I must of missed this email (I did notice Michael's reply), but really, I don't care if you like me or not, and I don't care whether you personally consider this discussion to be useless or not. First of all, many people make many contributions other than code. This includes bug reports, documentation, marketing and community support. I won't bother to list all the possible avenues for contribution because if you are so myopic as to make a statement like that I will not waste my time. In addition, as I very clearly stated, any contribution I could make has been refused by the project. As soon as the licensing issues are worked out, and the project is willing to accept code licensed only under the LGPL, then I would be willing to make contributions. I will not be signing the JCA, or SCA or whatever the name du-jour happens to be. I'm sure I'm not the only developer who feels this way. Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
All, Time out. This flame war is not really a discussion any longer on Butler Office. It's become a free for all with fire. We all have better things to do. So: enough blather. No more waste of time. This thread is cut. Louis On 2008-02-09, at 24:01 , Michael Meeks wrote: On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:51 +0100, Juergen Schmidt wrote: The project simply don't need people like you who has probably never contributed one line of code but are very good in this kind of useless discussion. Grief it's a dangerous precedent to start suggesting that people who contribute code might have more weight than other people ! pretty soon this leads to the madness of true meritocracy with sane governance by contributors; worse - people might notice you sound like me ;-) Interestingly, a couple of other non coders managed to express far more vigorous opinions without such a slap-down; why Allen ? :-) ATB, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Hi On 2008-02-09, at 01:12 , sophie wrote: Hi all, I answer here but this is not an answer to Michael's mail and this is why I top post. Please all, there is no need for more provocations. The world is not perfect, but it can be worse and it has been in the past. May I remember you that we didn't have the JCA at the beginning of the project, we didn't have the PDL, we didn't have a lot of tools that make our world much better now. We are now thinking about SCA, an adapted one to our community, so no need to quarrel about what is already behind. If you really have this energy to argue, please come and discuss how we can reenforce our workflow, our communication flow, our visibility and add more power to our community. This discussion about JCA has years, may be we should discuss why we don't have a beamer any more, or why we call ourself OOo, just to move to known sterile topics (even if they may be interesting and have to be worked out). If you disagree with what is done and how it works here, express yourself yes, but make it with confidence in this community where we are all *actors*. There is no good and no evil, but a group formed with corps, companies, individuals, all with very different interests being economic or egotist or social or moral, whatever. But we are all here for OOo, the product and the community, because we believe in them. What I know by myself is that this project and its members have done a lot of moves since its beginning. It has not been easy. We sometime have had to discuss a lot and proof our concepts, it has been exhausting and it is still so because we want all for today if not yesterday. But confidence is a key word in all these discussions to make them come to real facts. So please, really, stop this fight, and allow us to think at something that is reflecting our common love for OOo. Thanks in advance Kind regards Sophie +1 Thanks, Sophie. Louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Hi Juergen, I really did not want to step into this thread, but: On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote: 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. Sorry, but this is a really dangerous attitude. Please don't feel offended, but it very much reminds me what we used to have in our country in the communist era. You don't like it here? Emigrate. And don't be surprised if you get shot during that. I guess we all are here because we love OpenOffice.org. And each of us has his/her reasons for that. So what's wrong with having his/her (different) opinion about how it should be handled as a project? Regards, Jan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Sorry, but this is a really dangerous attitude. Please don't feel offended, but it very much reminds me what we used to have in our country in the communist era. You don't like it here? Emigrate. And don't be surprised if you get shot during that. Please emigrate to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or ..., not outside of our country ^H^H^Hproject. Got it? -- Pavel Janík - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Allen Pulsifer wrote: 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. This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get free development and code contributions to its StarOffice product. By posting things like this, you make it very clear that it is your goal and Sun's goal that all people who will not assign copyright in their work to Sun should leave the project, because you and Sun have no use for them. If this was not obvious before, it certainly is now. sorry but that is completely nonsense but it shows that you have understand nothing. But who wonders you are not really deep involved in the project and you don't know the reality. The project simply don't need people like you who has probably never contributed one line of code but are very good in this kind of useless discussion. Good bye Allen Juergen PS: that was my last comment on this thread - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Hi all, I answer here but this is not an answer to Michael's mail and this is why I top post. Please all, there is no need for more provocations. The world is not perfect, but it can be worse and it has been in the past. May I remember you that we didn't have the JCA at the beginning of the project, we didn't have the PDL, we didn't have a lot of tools that make our world much better now. We are now thinking about SCA, an adapted one to our community, so no need to quarrel about what is already behind. If you really have this energy to argue, please come and discuss how we can reenforce our workflow, our communication flow, our visibility and add more power to our community. This discussion about JCA has years, may be we should discuss why we don't have a beamer any more, or why we call ourself OOo, just to move to known sterile topics (even if they may be interesting and have to be worked out). If you disagree with what is done and how it works here, express yourself yes, but make it with confidence in this community where we are all *actors*. There is no good and no evil, but a group formed with corps, companies, individuals, all with very different interests being economic or egotist or social or moral, whatever. But we are all here for OOo, the product and the community, because we believe in them. What I know by myself is that this project and its members have done a lot of moves since its beginning. It has not been easy. We sometime have had to discuss a lot and proof our concepts, it has been exhausting and it is still so because we want all for today if not yesterday. But confidence is a key word in all these discussions to make them come to real facts. So please, really, stop this fight, and allow us to think at something that is reflecting our common love for OOo. Thanks in advance Kind regards Sophie Michael Meeks wrote: [...] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Jan Holesovsky wrote: Hi Juergen, I really did not want to step into this thread, but: On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote: 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. Sorry, but this is a really dangerous attitude. Please don't feel offended, but it very much reminds me what we used to have in our country in the communist era. You don't like it here? Emigrate. And don't be surprised if you get shot during that. well, think about my exaggerated comment and i am sure you know how it was meant. I guess we all are here because we love OpenOffice.org. And each of us has his/her reasons for that. So what's wrong with having his/her (different) opinion about how it should be handled as a project? i am not against an open and constructive discussion but not again and again when the base facts are still the same and haven't changed. It's simply useless and it is interesting that it always comes from the same people. Probably there is a reason for doing it again and again that i don't know or don't see. Anyway for me it's simply stupid. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Hi Mathias, On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 16:05 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: I don't want to kill the thread - I'm not even empowered to do that. :-) Good 'oh :-) personally I think the discussion is helpful. Jurgen is right, of course, that we discussed this 3 months ago, and that there has been no progress in between. That itself is worth noticing - despite the perception of activity improvement created by Advisory Boards and so on. Anyhow, if we can discuss there are a few other bits worth clearing up as well: On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 23:54 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: Michael Meeks wrote: Haha :-) I once tried using OpenOffice too, it's user-interface was perfection: no changes welcome. OK, I was just pulling your leg. Sorry for that. Of course, no need to apologise, it was amusing, good to inject some humour :-) Of course you can :-) I spent some time explaining that the vast majority of that code is CA free (I call that eclectic ownership). How much code is CA free doesn't make a difference - This is partially true - but re-applying this back to the interesting case: OO.o - what then is the problem with having CA free plugins included in the product ? :-) - it doesn't change the fact that only Novell is able to licence the whole stuff under proprietary conditions. With regard to our current discussion this is the identical situation as in case of OOo. Not really; lets summarise the differences: the vast majority of the Mono code is eclectic ownership, there is a small (and shrinking) core that is not. Furthermore, there are replacements for the 'core' piece as I understand it: eg. 'Portable.Net' implements their own core, and shares the run-time libraries, or you could use an IKVM type technique to run .Net apps on a JVM (I imagine), and at worst there is the non-free MS runtime. Were Novell to do something truly stupid unreasonable with the core Mono licensing tomorrow, demanding cash / concessions / whatever to ship / use it - there are lots of other options. Now consider OO.o - Sun owns everything, and insists on owning and controlling everything, even cleanly separated components [ included in the product ] (despite as you say) it not really making an immediate difference to Sun's licensing stranglehold. Obviously this leaves a very different situation if Sun decides to do something stupid tomorrow. IMHO, representation should follow contribution, the more you contribute - the more say ownership you should have: that seems only fair. Unfortunately, this is not true of OO.o - and I was hoping for some movement here - AB wise. A trivial and incremental way to achieve this, without hurting Sun's licensing business (in the 1st instance), is (as I outline) - allowing non-Sun-owned components into OO.o, under some suitable license of Sun's choosing etc. It seems fair and extremely reasonable. It is the sheer reasonable-ness of the proposal, combined with it's (apparent) unequivocal rejection by Sun that concerns me most. 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. I know the argument, I used to try to persuade people of this view :-) clearly however gratitude has its limits. It cuts both ways: Novell, and others have contributed substantially to OO.o, yet (apparently) Sun is unwilling to accept a wonderful opportunity to contribute their changes to our code back to (not even Novell of course, but some open transparent foundation). ie. why should the thank-yous appear to only go one-way ? 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. Fine :-) it would be silly anyway, now we know it's not so. 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. Heh :-) glad you can cope. And as you are doing your own builds anyway where you can include extensions easily - why bother? Well - ultimately, I would like to aim at working within the OpenOffice.org project, and reducing the differences between our builds to a minimum [ and of course, trying to ensure OO.o our users have the latest greatest components / features we work on in their download ]. But as you know, the main problem is that non-inclusion of components, appears to lead to duplication in the core. HTH, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
I see that Allen wants to continue in developing the project and product, so please everyone lets Allen do it... That would be great. As soon as the project is ready to accept LGPL contributions, then we can make that happen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
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. This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get free development and code contributions to its StarOffice product. By posting things like this, you make it very clear that it is your goal and Sun's goal that all people who will not assign copyright in their work to Sun should leave the project, because you and Sun have no use for them. If this was not obvious before, it certainly is now. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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] 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]
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]
RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms. This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code. Thank you for the example. I have to respect the fact the Novell is being very honest and open about it. Conversely, when discussing the JCA, Sun studiously avoids mentioning the fact that the JCA allows Sun to relicense contributions under any license it choose, including a commercial license. Here for example is this same pattern of avoidance right here in your post: In OpenOffice.org the JCA is required only for code contributed to the core product so that in case a relicencing might become necessary or desirable (e.g. a licence change from LGPLv2 to (L)GPLv3) this can be done easily. I think these discussion are very valuable, so that contributors, potential contributors and users can all understand the license terms and its implications. Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Allen, Le 5 févr. 08 à 21:00, Allen Pulsifer a écrit : Heck, even the FSF does that... You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an open source project unless it is given an assignment of copyright that allows it to license the contribution under any terms it wants, including a commercial license? Please direct me to the web page at fsf.org that says this. You're mixing two things here: license and copyright. The very fact of owning the copyright automatically gives you the right to relicense the software covered by your copyright under any terms you wish, and this applies to the FSF just like anybody. What the FSF does not do, of course is to develop its software under a dual license of course. What I'm saying about the FSF applies to every software that is called GNU, or more exactly the software projects that have given their copyright to the FSF (i.e, the GNU project): https:// savannah.gnu.org/ (check the copyright notices of the software) I'm surprized that you didn't know this, Allen. By the way, what I'm describing (copyright) is exactly what allows a company like MySQL to have a dual license strategy (GPL + commercial license) Best, Charles. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/assigning.html https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html Martin Allen Pulsifer wrote: Heck, even the FSF does that... You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an open source project unless it is given an assignment of copyright that allows it to license the contribution under any terms it wants, including a commercial license? Please direct me to the web page at fsf.org that says this. Allen - 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]
