Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
2011/6/5 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net Hi, Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch: On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconipub...@letturefantastiche.com wrote: Is it sure there will be a *product*? I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum. Let me rephrase to: Will there be a product named OpenOffice.org? I cannot answer, but as Gianluca mentioned Apache is more about a project, not a product. And considering the OOo dependencies to copyleft components, it will be quite a lot of work to get something that can be called product and behaves like OpenOffice.org. It is obvious that there will be a product called Symphony .. but OpenOffice.org? This is a core point of this discussion. I may not contribute to Apache OOo because I don't share their respectful goals, but I may promote and market a Apache OpenOffice.org product as far as it's open source and a *complete*, good software. I'm not talking about philosophies or license, but rather about what approach to the market this Apache project will have. Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I don't think he is. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to someone like IBM for real dollars? How do I know that it did not happen? do you know what negotiation occurred between Oracle and IBM, do you know the terms they agreed to? all I know is that whitin 30 minutes of the Oracle announce there was 3 page-long blog from IBMers linking each-other and prasing it... that is not reacting to a news, that is an orchestrated PR campaign. I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason Sure.. Who knows what footnote there is regarding the Trademark.. Oracle, for example, grant unlimited use of the mark to Apache, but reserve the right to use the mark itself as it see fit? with a well crafted NDA to boot ? Then drop the code to Apache... see what happen. the worse thing that can happen is that it dies... which from Oracle point of view is the same as if they did not transfer the code...(for all intent and purpose the openOffice.org project _is_ dead, look at http://hg.services.openoffice.org/?sort=lastchange if you have any doubt) and at best the code evolve well, and who knows, Apache can even achieve what Oracle didn't: lure honest Free Software people to unwittingly promote close-source by agreeing to contribute under the Apache License and at some point they can take it all back ( a bug^Hfeature of the Apache License) and use the Trademark to capture a significant part of an unsuspecting market (we, on these lists may be very aware of who the players are and who does what... but the public at large is not) What a beautiful business plan. at worse you don't lose anything, at best you got a ton of work for free. Note: Trademark are usually not that important for developer centric application/libraries... who remember what ethereal was? everybody moved on to wireshark... Hudson is already a footnote in history, anybody that matter to that project already knows that Jenkins is their new home... Xfree86 ? (come to think of it, I'm surprised they didn't apply to Apache.. it seems to be the weapon of choice for counter-fork these days...) but for end-users of a product like OpenOffice.org that is a different story. And just in case that is not clear to some readers: If you contribute code under the Apache License, you might just as well have contributed that code to Oracle with copyright assigignment. The copryright assignment was there only to nullify the protection granted to you by the GPL as far as the assignee (Oracle) is concerned. Apache License achieve the same thing, just more straight forwardly, with a much more polish PR spin on it. So if you had objection to contribute to Oracle under these terms you should be just as reluctant to contribute anything under the Apache License. Norbert -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RE-Re-tdf-discuss-RE-Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3023594p3025592.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature to be copied/improved in LO. The analogy is opera introducing tabbed web pages in a browser and firefox later introducing the same function. More separately developed ODF compliant products in the market is a good result, just like there are numerous gnu/linux distributions for users to choose. The proliferation of many ODF products gives powerful confidence to users that if apache OO (any other ODF compliant product( disappears, the user can switch to using LO. It should be remembered that this cannot occur with m$o and this is the single most dominant benefit of numerous ODF programs to the user. It is the killer reason to use LO. In summary, please do not merge apache OO (or any non-(L)GPL) code with LO. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Le 2011-06-05 05:04, e-letter a écrit : DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature to be copied/improved in LO. The analogy is opera introducing tabbed web pages in a browser and firefox later introducing the same function. More separately developed ODF compliant products in the market is a good result, just like there are numerous gnu/linux distributions for users to choose. The proliferation of many ODF products gives powerful confidence to users that if apache OO (any other ODF compliant product( disappears, the user can switch to using LO. It should be remembered that this cannot occur with m$o and this is the single most dominant benefit of numerous ODF programs to the user. It is the killer reason to use LO. In summary, please do not merge apache OO (or any non-(L)GPL) code with LO. Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our great product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in Oracle's hands. We have a truly community oriented and supported product with great licenses as opposed to a restrictive ASF product. We do not need to join the ASF OOo project for code as we can include some of it in our product. Why join a product line that was left in controversy only to join another group with the same product that is now built on controversy? This is the reason the TDF group left Oracle/Sun to create a more equal community. There is no point in participating in a group of unequals again. Let's just get back to what we are good at doing, leave the lurkers silent rather than giving them a platform (which is what they want). We are the community they wish they had. Cheers Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 5 June 2011 09:19, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote: Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I don't think he is. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to someone like IBM for real dollars? How do I know that it did not happen? Because such transactions (if anything other than trivial) have to be recorded and it would get out. There are regulatory systems, auditors etc. do you know what negotiation occurred between Oracle and IBM, do you know the terms they agreed to? No but then a negative doesn't prove a positive. If you want to look for conspiracies you can find them almost anywhere. On balance looking at the evidence the most likely explanation is ASF said they didn't need the copyright (confirmed by their people) IBM have an interest in the code for Symphony. Oracle have no real interest in the code but need somewhere to put it even if only for PR. They aren't going to give it to TDF for several reasons so where do they put it? ASF is a very logical choice given the other constraints. Ok, they *might* have done some convoluted backhand deal with IBM to ensure it was a permissive license but I don't see why they would need to, it was the logical thing to do for them anyway. It could be that IBM will take on some Oracle coders, I don't know, and I suppose that would be a form of payment but its small stuff in the scheme of things. all I know is that whitin 30 minutes of the Oracle announce there was 3 page-long blog from IBMers linking each-other and prasing it... that is not reacting to a news, that is an orchestrated PR campaign. Surely they will have talked about stuff behind the scenes and they want it to work. Not very surprising. I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason Sure.. Who knows what footnote there is regarding the Trademark.. Oracle, for example, grant unlimited use of the mark to Apache, but reserve the right to use the mark itself as it see fit? with a well crafted NDA to boot ? I think this has now been explained by the ASF people that know licensing law. Then drop the code to Apache... see what happen. the worse thing that can happen is that it dies... which from Oracle point of view is the same as if they did not transfer the code...(for all intent and purpose the openOffice.org project _is_ dead, look at http://hg.services.openoffice.org/?sort=lastchange if you have any doubt) and at best the code evolve well, and who knows, Apache can even achieve what Oracle didn't: lure honest Free Software people to unwittingly promote close-source by agreeing to contribute under the Apache License But there is an argument that if we want odf file format to succeed the more people commercial or otherwise that produce software supporting it the better. If you are strongly copyleft at all costs you will say this is too Machiavellian to be supported. OTOH, others might say the end justifies the means. Individuals will have to make up their own minds. and at some point they can take it all back ( a bug^Hfeature of the Apache License) and use the Trademark to capture a significant part of an unsuspecting market (we, on these lists may be very aware of who the players are and who does what... but the public at large is not) I don't see how it is possible to take it all back Once licensed that code and subsequent derivatives are not in their control. Just like LO can go on developing as before. If they fork the project under their own new license, yes they could make a proprietary version but then so can anyone. I don't see that in Oracles plans - if it was why bother with ASF at all? To drag in some developers? Well possibly but they could argue that they already put in their fair share of development funding over the years. What a beautiful business plan. at worse you don't lose anything, at best you got a ton of work for free. Don't forget Sun and Oracle paid for a substantial part of what is now OOo and its derivatives so they could argue they have given the community a ton of work for free. Note: Trademark are usually not that important for developer centric application/libraries... who remember what ethereal was? everybody moved on to wireshark... Hudson is already a footnote in history, anybody that matter to that project already knows that Jenkins is their new home... Xfree86 ? (come to think of it, I'm surprised they didn't apply to Apache.. it seems to be the weapon of choice for counter-fork these days...) but for end-users of a product like OpenOffice.org that is a different story. And just in case that is not clear to some readers: If you contribute code under the Apache License, you might just as well have contributed that code to Oracle with copyright assigignment. The copryright assignment was there only to nullify the protection granted to you by the GPL as far as the assignee (Oracle) is concerned. Apache License achieve the same
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 5 June 2011 10:04, e-letter inp...@gmail.com wrote: DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature to be copied/improved in LO. The analogy is opera introducing tabbed web pages in a browser and firefox later introducing the same function. More separately developed ODF compliant products in the market is a good result, just like there are numerous gnu/linux distributions for users to choose. The proliferation of many ODF products gives powerful confidence to users that if apache OO (any other ODF compliant product( disappears, the user can switch to using LO. It should be remembered that this cannot occur with m$o and this is the single most dominant benefit of numerous ODF programs to the user. It is the killer reason to use LO. In summary, please do not merge apache OO (or any non-(L)GPL) code with LO. I can see the logic in this argument but also think of the cost. It means that there is going to be masses of duplication of effort in a scenario where development resources are at a premium. For me a better practical outcome would be for the main development effort for core code to be done on OOo at ASF. It might be that there is never a product released, simply develop components useful and save all the release and distribution resource, putting it into development. LO and other projects build their products on those components with as many extensions, improvements etc as they want under their chosen license. So whether or not this is achievable with eg LO will depend on whether the LO steering committee do or do not agree to re-use OOo code. If they don't there will be at least two diverging forks. Both might flourish, one or both might die. Only time will tell. My perception is that there is less risk to the goal of having a free and open document format through cooperation and sharing and to me that goal is more important than any of the particular license flavours of OOo. If it was a perfect world I would favour the GPL for all but it isn't a perfect world. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Marc Paré wrote: Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our great product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in Oracle's hands. Speaking for any ASF lurkers here, I can assure people that we are not here to change anyone's mind, nor to try to dampen open conversation by our presence, nor anything else that would prevent TDF from continuing to do what it is doing, and doing it so well. We are here simply to answer questions and, most important, to address, and clear up, any FUD that could potentially derail any cooperation. Let's be honest, there's enough real-world issues that have the potential to derail things; having to deal with non-existant FUD issues is something no one wants to :-) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was neither necessary nor required. What was required was a standard Software Grant. Once that was provided neither side has pursued it any further. Can you also clarify the disposition of the trademarks please, Sam? S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was neither necessary nor required. What was required was a standard Software Grant. Once that was provided neither side has pursued it any further. Can you also clarify the disposition of the trademarks please, Sam? Incomplete at this time. I will have more to say when I have something concrete to report. S. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi, Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch: On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconipub...@letturefantastiche.comwrote: Is it sure there will be a *product*? I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum. Let me rephrase to: Will there be a product named OpenOffice.org? I cannot answer, but as Gianluca mentioned Apache is more about a project, not a product. And considering the OOo dependencies to copyleft components, it will be quite a lot of work to get something that can be called product and behaves like OpenOffice.org. It is obvious that there will be a product called Symphony .. but OpenOffice.org? regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Another alexandre... I've been reading the discussion and i have a pragmatic question. Why ASF doesnt join to TDF and better Why TDF join to ASF using their code governance to develop one unique produticvity plataform called LibreOffice and that could be used commercialy when properly customized and licensed aggreed to be used as as a costumized version of libreoffice for a especific use ??? This model is already avaible and viable to all envolved parts here. Em 05/06/2011 14:29, André Schnabel escreveu: Hi, Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch: On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconipub...@letturefantastiche.comwrote: Is it sure there will be a *product*? I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum. Let me rephrase to: Will there be a product named OpenOffice.org? I cannot answer, but as Gianluca mentioned Apache is more about a project, not a product. And considering the OOo dependencies to copyleft components, it will be quite a lot of work to get something that can be called product and behaves like OpenOffice.org. It is obvious that there will be a product called Symphony .. but OpenOffice.org? regards, André -- Alexandre Silveira alexandre.silveira.b...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
2011/6/5 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net: Hi, Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch: On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconipub...@letturefantastiche.comwrote: Is it sure there will be a *product*? I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum. Let me rephrase to: Will there be a product named OpenOffice.org? I cannot answer, but as Gianluca mentioned Apache is more about a project, not a product. And considering the OOo dependencies to copyleft components, it will be quite a lot of work to get something that can be called product and behaves like OpenOffice.org. I certainly believe that Apache will work to release a product under the OOo brand. But it will probably take quite a while to get there. In the meantime, components and other deliverables will have to suffice. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 5 Jun 2011, at 18:42, Greg Stein wrote: As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no indication either intends to change), then I believe direct joining of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find other ways to cooperate. Any idea what the best venue for that will end up being, Greg? Do we need to create a collaboration forum somewhere that's neutral territory for both ASF and TDF? S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:44, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 5 Jun 2011, at 18:42, Greg Stein wrote: As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no indication either intends to change), then I believe direct joining of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find other ways to cooperate. Any idea what the best venue for that will end up being, Greg? Do we need to create a collaboration forum somewhere that's neutral territory for both ASF and TDF? No idea, actually. Probably something to just wait and see. There doesn't seem to be a strong consensus on any of the proposed ways to collaborate, so until that happens, it is hard to guess what will be needed. For now, subscribing to a few mailing lists seems about the best approach :-) Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:12:59PM +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: I don't see how it is possible to take it all back Once licensed that code and subsequent derivatives are not in their control. Just like LO can go on developing as before. If they fork the project under their own new license, yes they could make a proprietary version but then so can anyone. I don't see that in Oracles plans - if it was why bother with ASF at all? To drag in some developers? Because Apache does not require copyright assignment, Oracle retains copyright on the materials that they have licensed to the ASF under the terms of the software grant. However, once the commits start on the new podling, Oracle will only have the right to use the ever-expanding delta under the same terms as everyone else. They can maintain their own proprietary fork incorporating the ASF product, but they cannot *prevent* anyone else from competing with them by doing the same. A common read of Oracle's recent actions is that they plan to wash their hands of OO.o, but for the sake of argument let's imagine that that's not the case and that they plan to sell a proprietary version. Yes, they get free development from all the people contributing to the ASF codebase, but they do not get *exclusive* rights to use those contributions, and thus those free contributions confer limited commercial marketplace advantage. And just in case that is not clear to some readers: If you contribute code under the Apache License, you might just as well have contributed that code to Oracle with copyright assigignment. The copryright assignment was there only to nullify the protection granted to you by the GPL as far as the assignee (Oracle) is concerned. Apache License achieve the same thing, just more straight forwardly, with a much more polish PR spin on it. So if you had objection to contribute to Oracle under these terms you should be just as reluctant to contribute anything under the Apache License. I'll let the Apache people reply to that as they are much better qualified to do so than I am. Consolidation of copyright in the hands of one entity enables unilateral relicensing. We have all just seen that in action with Oracle's software grant of the OO.o codebase under ALv2 to the ASF, but it was also in evidence earlier when Oracle licensed OO.o to IBM for use as the basis for Lotus Symphony. Now that Oracle has signed the ALv2 software grant and made the codebase available under an attribution-based, permissive license, IBM doesn't need the previous privately negotiated arrangement. The relicensing revenue stream has been closed off for Oracle. Any code that you contribute to the ASF will similarly, not be available for a commercial entity to relicense. For this and other reasons, licensing your code to the ASF is very different from assigning copyright to Oracle. It is true that code that contribute to the ASF may be used in proprietary products, which some people may find objectionable for various reasons. However, having a foundation such as the ASF or TDF serve as the custodian for projects where copyright ownership is distributed throughout the community imposes constraints that are not in place when copyrights are consolidated in the hands of a single commercial entity. Disclaimer: I participate in ASF projects, but I'm speaking as just some guy on the internet trying to help everyone out. Marvin Humphrey -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
A reminder,about last line. In this particular case Oracle does not have the copyrights about openoffice. If they claim that now,they will have serious problems with other companies for a lot of reasons... Em 05/06/2011 16:06, Marvin Humphrey escreveu: On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:12:59PM +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: I don't see how it is possible to take it all back Once licensed that code and subsequent derivatives are not in their control. Just like LO can go on developing as before. If they fork the project under their own new license, yes they could make a proprietary version but then so can anyone. I don't see that in Oracles plans - if it was why bother with ASF at all? To drag in some developers? Because Apache does not require copyright assignment, Oracle retains copyright on the materials that they have licensed to the ASF under the terms of the software grant. However, once the commits start on the new podling, Oracle will only have the right to use the ever-expanding delta under the same terms as everyone else. They can maintain their own proprietary fork incorporating the ASF product, but they cannot *prevent* anyone else from competing with them by doing the same. A common read of Oracle's recent actions is that they plan to wash their hands of OO.o, but for the sake of argument let's imagine that that's not the case and that they plan to sell a proprietary version. Yes, they get free development from all the people contributing to the ASF codebase, but they do not get *exclusive* rights to use those contributions, and thus those free contributions confer limited commercial marketplace advantage. And just in case that is not clear to some readers: If you contribute code under the Apache License, you might just as well have contributed that code to Oracle with copyright assigignment. The copryright assignment was there only to nullify the protection granted to you by the GPL as far as the assignee (Oracle) is concerned. Apache License achieve the same thing, just more straight forwardly, with a much more polish PR spin on it. So if you had objection to contribute to Oracle under these terms you should be just as reluctant to contribute anything under the Apache License. I'll let the Apache people reply to that as they are much better qualified to do so than I am. Consolidation of copyright in the hands of one entity enables unilateral relicensing. We have all just seen that in action with Oracle's software grant of the OO.o codebase under ALv2 to the ASF, but it was also in evidence earlier when Oracle licensed OO.o to IBM for use as the basis for Lotus Symphony. Now that Oracle has signed the ALv2 software grant and made the codebase available under an attribution-based, permissive license, IBM doesn't need the previous privately negotiated arrangement. The relicensing revenue stream has been closed off for Oracle. Any code that you contribute to the ASF will similarly, not be available for a commercial entity to relicense. For this and other reasons, licensing your code to the ASF is very different from assigning copyright to Oracle. It is true that code that contribute to the ASF may be used in proprietary products, which some people may find objectionable for various reasons. However, having a foundation such as the ASF or TDF serve as the custodian for projects where copyright ownership is distributed throughout the community imposes constraints that are not in place when copyrights are consolidated in the hands of a single commercial entity. Disclaimer: I participate in ASF projects, but I'm speaking as just some guy on the internet trying to help everyone out. Marvin Humphrey -- Alexandre Silveira alexandre.silveira.b...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: Consolidation of copyright in the hands of one entity enables unilateral relicensing. We have all just seen that in action with Oracle's software grant of the OO.o codebase under ALv2 to the ASF, but it was also in evidence earlier when Oracle licensed OO.o to IBM for use as the basis for Lotus Symphony. Now that Oracle has signed the ALv2 software grant and made the codebase available under an attribution-based, permissive license, IBM doesn't need the previous privately negotiated arrangement. The relicensing revenue stream has been closed off for Oracle. Any code that you contribute to the ASF will similarly, not be available for a commercial entity to relicense. For this and other reasons, licensing your code to the ASF is very different from assigning copyright to Oracle. It is true that code that contribute to the ASF may be used in proprietary products, which some people may find objectionable for various reasons. However, having a foundation such as the ASF or TDF serve as the custodian for projects where copyright ownership is distributed throughout the community imposes constraints that are not in place when copyrights are consolidated in the hands of a single commercial entity. I am still not clear on what constraints it imposes. In the previous system, companies had to either use a copyleft license, or they could buy a license from Sun/Oracle. Assuming they did the latter, and it was in the license agreement, they could do whatever they want in their own version without giving anything back to the open-source version. In practical terms, the only difference I can see now is that Sun/Oracle is no longer restricting things. Anyone can take the software and make their own internal changes without having to give anything back. So I can see how this is a constraint to the open-source community since they can no longer put pressure on companies to contribute back to the project. I can also see how it adds contraint to Oracle. But this seems to remove all the existing restraints from all other proprietary developers. What new contraints are there for propietary developers besides Sun/Oracle? -Todd -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Marc Paré wrote: Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our great product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in Oracle's hands. We have a truly community oriented and supported product with great licenses as opposed to a restrictive ASF product. We do not need to join the ASF OOo project for code as we can include some of it in our product. Why join a product line that was left in controversy only to join another group with the same product that is now built on controversy? I am basically an end user who just happens to be a computer HARDWARE expert, the last time I did any coding was in college, and it was BASIC on a machine running CP/M with a Z-80 processor. But I have built many hundreds of computers and I put a copy of OpenOffice on every one I built after it became available as a free of cost download. As I understand TDF and ASF have incompatible licenses, code from OO can be incorporated in LO, but code from LO cannot be incorporated in OO. At least if OpenOffice continues under the Apache Software Foundation. That would lead me to expect that the two office suites will continue to diverge until the point where there remains no significant compatibility between them. I also have been led to the conclusion that ASF is good at producing software that companies will use, but not at providing anything for individual end users. I notice that OOo is still available for download on Oracle hosted servers, but who knows how long that will continue. From what I have read here over this weekend, it looks to me like soon, probably by the end of summer LO from TDF will be the only viable choice remaining for consumers to download. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, so far I have seen TDF already do more as far as cleaning up the code in about 6 months than Sun and Oracle did in 6 years. Perhaps in the long run it would be best for those of us who have chosen to use, contribute, support LibreOffice to simply forget about OpenOffice and concentrate on making LibreOffice the best office productivity suite possible. This is my take from what I have read here this weekend. I am not about to debate the relative merits of the two different types of licenses, from what I gather they really don't make much differences to end users who can't contribute code, at least not in the short term. This is the reason the TDF group left Oracle/Sun to create a more equal community. There is no point in participating in a group of unequals again. Let's just get back to what we are good at doing, leave the lurkers silent rather than giving them a platform (which is what they want). We are the community they wish they had. Cheers Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi, In my opinion, after all history involving OpenOffice, the ideal would be that this code was donated to the TDF. Everything under the GPL. With the software under the Apache license, we can not work directly in LibreOffice because they can not use our effort due to license GPL-Apache. Thus, we must direct our efforts to the software under the Apache license and reuse what we want to LibreOffice. But it will also allow our volunteer work is used by large companies to create an unopened product for sale. We will be working for free. This is interesting? What is the advantage for the community? I think the TDF members could express any comment with the positives and negatives points. Eduardo Alexandre Gula -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Allen Pulsifer ha scritto: So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as possible. If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can. Firstly, I've to say that I'm happy Oracle hasn't killed OOo and *will* donate even its brand to Apache Foundation. Then, as a volunteer, I simply see a duplication of efforts for whatever TDF volunteers in this proposal. What TDF can get for Apache project, it can be already taken thanks to Apache License 2.0. Any further contribution to that project has really no sense from a TDF volunteer's point of view. Especially if the volunteer is not a developer. Yes, there may be coordination between TDF and Apache OOo development (I give you something, you give me something), but a direct contribution to Apache OOo is rather risky (I give you something and... ehi, you have no duty to give me something back! according to AFL v. 2.0). That isn't, really, what I want from a *free software* project. Plain and simple. :) Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
2011/6/4 Gianluca Turconi pub...@letturefantastiche.com Yes, there may be coordination between TDF and Apache OOo development (I give you something, you give me something), but a direct contribution to Apache OOo is rather risky (I give you something and... ehi, you have no duty to give me something back! according to AFL v. 2.0). That isn't, really, what I want from a *free software* project. Plain and simple. :) +1 o/ Eduardo Alexandre -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eduardo Alexandre eduardog...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, In my opinion, after all history involving OpenOffice, the ideal would be that this code was donated to the TDF. Everything under the GPL. With the software under the Apache license, we can not work directly in LibreOffice because they can not use our effort due to license GPL-Apache. Thus, we must direct our efforts to the software under the Apache license and reuse what we want to LibreOffice. But it will also allow our volunteer work is used by large companies to create an unopened product for sale. We will be working for free. This is interesting? What is the advantage for the community? IBM already has an OpenOffice product called IBM Lotus Symphony, http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony Although based on OpenOffice, it is closed-source due to a special deal with Sun. If you try to download it, you are presented with a typical restricting EULA. I believe that IBM, pushing for Apache OpenOffice, want to get the best of the work of the community in order to enhance their product, and start selling to business customers. IBM employees claimed that they will make parts of Lotus Symphony available to Apache OpenOffice, however it is not clear what is in Lotus Symphony and what will make it into Apache OpenOffice. With Apache OpenOffice, IBM would probably get an unfair advantage to sell their proprietary OpenOffice. And this would be bad for the community. Just like the Linux kernel is copyleft (GPL) and everyone contributes to a single project, OpenOffice/LibreOffice should be copyleft, so that all work goes to one place and is able grow fast. Simos -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Simos Xenitellis ha scritto: Just like the Linux kernel is copyleft (GPL) and everyone contributes to a single project, OpenOffice/LibreOffice should be copyleft, so that all work goes to one place and is able grow fast. BTW, LibreOffice code is even *LGPL*/MPL, enough corporation friendly, I suppose. :-) Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Everyone, This is my first post on this discussion list. I am not into the deep things of licensing, but I have kept an eye open to understand it better. This discussion list is helping me understand the whole situation better. I may be wrong in my opinion, so I am open to change. I believe that a completely open source project like this one is necessary to keep things clear. By this, I mean, that keeping a licensing model clearly open source where businesses will not be benefitting without contributing is important. By setting a contrast with the two extremes - proprietary/OpenSource - it helps me to understand the whole concept better. If we keep LibreOffice as it is, in my opinion, will be better. It will represent the extreme end of the spectrum helping keep tensions up so that the in-between licensing models will have something to base themselves on (i.e. Apache, etc.). Conclusion: I vote for LibreOffice to remain as it is. I have not wanted to post before as I needed to get a little more familiar with this community. Since then I have noticed that various kinds of comments are made freely on this forum, so I am feeling more at liberty (LIBRE!!!) to comment. Please correct me if I am wrong, regards to all timotheonb Em 04-06-2011 11:21, Simos Xenitellis escreveu: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eduardo Alexandreeduardog...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, In my opinion, after all history involving OpenOffice, the ideal would be that this code was donated to the TDF. Everything under the GPL. With the software under the Apache license, we can not work directly in LibreOffice because they can not use our effort due to license GPL-Apache. Thus, we must direct our efforts to the software under the Apache license and reuse what we want to LibreOffice. But it will also allow our volunteer work is used by large companies to create an unopened product for sale. We will be working for free. This is interesting? What is the advantage for the community? IBM already has an OpenOffice product called IBM Lotus Symphony, http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony Although based on OpenOffice, it is closed-source due to a special deal with Sun. If you try to download it, you are presented with a typical restricting EULA. I believe that IBM, pushing for Apache OpenOffice, want to get the best of the work of the community in order to enhance their product, and start selling to business customers. IBM employees claimed that they will make parts of Lotus Symphony available to Apache OpenOffice, however it is not clear what is in Lotus Symphony and what will make it into Apache OpenOffice. With Apache OpenOffice, IBM would probably get an unfair advantage to sell their proprietary OpenOffice. And this would be bad for the community. Just like the Linux kernel is copyleft (GPL) and everyone contributes to a single project, OpenOffice/LibreOffice should be copyleft, so that all work goes to one place and is able grow fast. Simos -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go to Apache and say Please let us have that? Oracle are code-dumping because the community left them standing alone. Oracle are acting as generous benefactors but may end up splitting the OS community over this one. We do not need two near-identical office suites. The duplication in effort is not worth it. The option of LibO becoming a customised build of Apache OO, where we take from them and add our own things becomes a maintenance nightmare. LibO 3.4 already has enough clear differences from OOo 3.4 that make the idea of moving code modules back and forth difficult. There will be a lot of re-engineering simply to keep things working and much potential to introduce bugs. From a marketing point of view, the appearance of yet another OpenOffice is not helpful. We now have OpenOffice.org, Star Office, Oracle Open Office, BrOffice, Go-oo, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Symphony, NeoOffice, Euro Office and, of course, LibreOffice. At least when everything else was a build of OOo with some addons, it could be understood. When TDF was set up, it was a case of everything else being a build of LibO with addons, plus OpenOffice.org - and we hoped either Oracle would code-dump in our direction, or just go away. When TDF was set up, there was an invitation to Oracle to take part. They declined. This invitation should be passed on to Apache. They don't need the hassle of maintaining a parallel project - especially one that the wider community has dropped. ZF -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Oracle has rejected the invitation e. .. passed the code to Apache! Something motivated move to Apache and not to TDF. The invitation for Oracle can be done for the Apache? If yes, could be on the condition of maintaining a software under the GPL? Eduardo Alexandre 2011/6/4 Zaphod Feeblejocks zapho...@gmail.com Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go to Apache and say Please let us have that? Oracle are code-dumping because the community left them standing alone. Oracle are acting as generous benefactors but may end up splitting the OS community over this one. We do not need two near-identical office suites. The duplication in effort is not worth it. The option of LibO becoming a customised build of Apache OO, where we take from them and add our own things becomes a maintenance nightmare. LibO 3.4 already has enough clear differences from OOo 3.4 that make the idea of moving code modules back and forth difficult. There will be a lot of re-engineering simply to keep things working and much potential to introduce bugs. From a marketing point of view, the appearance of yet another OpenOffice is not helpful. We now have OpenOffice.org, Star Office, Oracle Open Office, BrOffice, Go-oo, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Symphony, NeoOffice, Euro Office and, of course, LibreOffice. At least when everything else was a build of OOo with some addons, it could be understood. When TDF was set up, it was a case of everything else being a build of LibO with addons, plus OpenOffice.org - and we hoped either Oracle would code-dump in our direction, or just go away. When TDF was set up, there was an invitation to Oracle to take part. They declined. This invitation should be passed on to Apache. They don't need the hassle of maintaining a parallel project - especially one that the wider community has dropped. ZF -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go to Apache and say Please let us have that? Hello Zaphod, There are two pieces to Oracle's donation: 1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to distribute the OpenOffice code under the Apache License. (To answer the question Charles just posted, Oracle has retained ownership of the copyrights, and granted the ASF a license.) 2. Oracle has granted the ASF permission to use the OpenOffice.org trademark, and has indicated that it will eventually transfer ownership of that trademark and the openoffice.org internet domain to the ASF. Just addressing the code, yes, the TDF can take all of the code under the Apache License, so that part is done. I think what you are saying though is this: Can we ask the ASF to not go forward with an Apache OpenOffice project that is licensed under the Apache License. The answer is that we can ask and that has been asked. The sentiment over at the ASF is that they see value in having an Apache Licensed project. With an Apache Licensed project, anyone downstream can use the code, including TDF, IBM, or anyone else, and they can use it for open source or closed source derivatives. That is essentially the ASF's mission in life. They are a USA recognized charity (a 501(3)(c), I believe), that is dedicated to producing software that is free for virtually any use. So it is my understanding that having accepted the donation from Oracle, their preference is to do ahead and convert the code to the Apache License, so that the core ODF functionality and any other important and valuable technologies can be adopted into as many projects as possible, both open source and commercial. They are welcoming anyone to participate in that who has an interested in OpenOffice, ODF, free software, etc. They have no problem with the TDF using any code that the project produces, and they welcome contributions from any TDF members, whether they want to contribute individually or as a group. That is my understanding. Allen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:06:34, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org ha scritto: Apologies for top posting, I'm on my phone. Perhaps did I get confused for a moment but I hear that Oracle will in fact retain the copyright on the Openoffice codebase I've read in the Apache list that Oracle will retain the OOo brand ownership, *for the time being* and Apache F. has an agreement for its use. About the code, Apache F. should have the ownership according to their usual agreements for contributions. Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 4 June 2011 16:47, Zaphod Feeblejocks zapho...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go to Apache and say Please let us have that? It's a good question. I suspect not now - OOo is not yet even accepted into the incubator at Apache. Depends on what Oracle lawyers built into any conditions. It could be possible later down the line but I doubt it would be very sensible for someone at Apache to broadcast that intention in earshot of oracle ;-) Oracle are code-dumping because the community left them standing alone. Oracle are acting as generous benefactors but may end up splitting the OS community over this one. We do not need two near-identical office suites. The duplication in effort is not worth it. That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself. It seems inevitable that there will be a copyleft product overseen by TDF and an ASF licensed product. Question is whether we can cooperate effectively enough to keep the code mostly common. Honest answer is I'm not sure but I don't see any alternative. The option of LibO becoming a customised build of Apache OO, where we take from them and add our own things becomes a maintenance nightmare. LibO 3.4 already has enough clear differences from OOo 3.4 that make the idea of moving code modules back and forth difficult. There will be a lot of re-engineering simply to keep things working and much potential to introduce bugs. So life is complicated ;-) From a marketing point of view, the appearance of yet another OpenOffice is not helpful. We now have OpenOffice.org, Star Office, Oracle Open Office, BrOffice, Go-oo, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Symphony, NeoOffice, Euro Office and, of course, LibreOffice. Some would say that was a benefit of open source - at least they all are 100% odf compliant. At least when everything else was a build of OOo with some addons, it could be understood. When TDF was set up, it was a case of everything else being a build of LibO with addons, plus OpenOffice.org - and we hoped either Oracle would code-dump in our direction, or just go away. When TDF was set up, there was an invitation to Oracle to take part. They declined. This invitation should be passed on to Apache. They don't need the hassle of maintaining a parallel project - especially one that the wider community has dropped. I suppose that it might be possible to persuade Apache to just allow the code to die and carry on from the LO code base - probably that loses IBM (some will say that is a good thing) - but I can't really see that happening in the short term because IBM and others will support that code and Apache has no remit to deny one project over another. ZF -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:14:16, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org ha scritto: 1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to distribute the OpenOffice code under the Apache License. (To answer the question Charles just posted, Oracle has retained ownership of the copyrights, and granted the ASF a license.) Is it sure is a license? In Apache list were talking about tax deductions for a *donation*. Are we talking about a *future* and only *possible* donation? Well, if so, this seems strange. :) I would have called it vaporware, but I respect Apache too much to think so. Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 17:59:04, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com ha scritto: That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself. It seems inevitable that there will be a copyleft product overseen by TDF and an ASF licensed product. Is it sure there will be a *product*? That's rather important, because who uses the Apache license is usually interested in having a *project* that is a rather different beast. ;-) Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Gianluca, Allen, My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis. Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle. Best, charles. Le 4 juin 2011, 6:26 PM, Gianluca Turconi pub...@letturefantastiche.com a écrit : In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:14:16, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org ha scritto: 1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to distribute the OpenOffice co... Is it sure is a license? In Apache list were talking about tax deductions for a *donation*. Are we talking about a *future* and only *possible* donation? Well, if so, this seems strange. :) I would have called it vaporware, but I respect Apache too much to think so. Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, h... Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.orgPosting guidelines + more: h... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:33:26, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org ha scritto: My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis. I'm reading the Groklaw article right now. is this http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011060314010442 isn't it? Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconi pub...@letturefantastiche.comwrote: In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 17:59:04, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com ha scritto: That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself. It seems inevitable that there will be a copyleft product overseen by TDF and an ASF licensed product. Is it sure there will be a *product*? I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum. That's rather important, because who uses the Apache license is usually interested in having a *project* that is a rather different beast. ;-) Agreed, the IBM proprietary product would be a different beast from LO. But let's face it there are already many OOo variants out there. I don't think that changes that much. I think Michael's point about which code contributions are effectively blocked to which developers is the more difficult one. Personally I know this is a mess but making it less of a mess through cooperation seems a better route than trying to achieve something unachievable. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE : Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Yes. Charles. Le 4 juin 2011, 6:37 PM, Gianluca Turconi pub...@letturefantastiche.com a écrit : In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:33:26, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org ha scritto: My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis. I'm reading the Groklaw article right now. is this http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011060314010442 isn't it? Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fa... Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/NetiquetteList archive: http://listar... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:41:23, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com ha scritto: Agreed, the IBM proprietary product would be a different beast from LO. But let's face it there are already many OOo variants out there. I don't think that changes that much. I think Michael's point about which code contributions are effectively blocked to which developers is the more difficult one. Personally I know this is a mess but making it less of a mess through cooperation seems a better route than trying to achieve something unachievable. Uhm, I can't speak for the developers and about how much collaboration there can be among the two projects, but can I say that, though Oracle's decision to license/donate code is perfectly legitimate, this specific proposal to join Apache OpenOffice appears like the attempt of a start-up corporation to do shopping for employees with the right know-how in another corporation that works in the same market? I think it's difficult, now, to improve the situation, because the right thing to do for a reunification would have been to release the code under its normal and usually used *copyleft* license. The license change is a pain in the neck for the users too, because they may lose several features they are used to and that are covered by copyleft licenses. What a *community* product can you have in this way? Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Gianluca, Allen, My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis. Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle. Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I mean Oracle is on a get out strategy. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to someone like IBM for real dollars? To a corporate something has value if they see potential to make money out of it and neither Sun nor Oracle really did. Ok, Oracle will still own the copyright but in effect the Apache license means its pretty much a token. I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Best, charles. Le 4 juin 2011, 6:26 PM, Gianluca Turconi pub...@letturefantastiche.com a écrit : In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:14:16, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org ha scritto: 1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to distribute the OpenOffice co... Is it sure is a license? In Apache list were talking about tax deductions for a *donation*. Are we talking about a *future* and only *possible* donation? Well, if so, this seems strange. :) I would have called it vaporware, but I respect Apache too much to think so. Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, h... Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.orgPosting guidelines + more: h... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
2011/6/4 Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Gianluca, Allen, My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis. Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle. Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I mean Oracle is on a get out strategy. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to someone like IBM for real dollars? they did best: Are trying to recruit workers volunteers at no cost. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was neither necessary nor required. What was required was a standard Software Grant. Once that was provided neither side has pursued it any further. As the Apache model is intentionally not based on Copyright Assignment, a grant of the copyright would quickly become irrelevant over time as people make contributions based on the terms specified in the Individual Contributor License Agreement and in the Apache License, Version 2.0 itself. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi *, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was neither necessary nor required. I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for Apache, nor for TDF. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
