Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?
Hi, On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:37:15 -0400 Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 14:04, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Greg Stein wrote: For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not be able to take it.[1] can someone enlighten me please? What is ICLA or a non-CLA? I have no idea and would like to know, what you're talking about. Thanks, Sigrid -- 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] Triple licensing?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Sigrid Carrera sigrid.carr...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:37:15 -0400 Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 14:04, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Greg Stein wrote: For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not be able to take it.[1] can someone enlighten me please? What is ICLA or a non-CLA? I have no idea and would like to know, what you're talking about. Here is the ASF's ICLA: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt Note: this is *not* a copyright assignment. People who contribute code, documentation, or other changes to the ASF retain full copyright of their work. All this ICLA does is establish clearly that the contributor grants to the ASF has all necessary rights (within their ability to do so) to distribute this Work. Thanks, Sigrid - 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] Triple licensing?
Hi Sam, On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:27:17 -0400 Sam Ruby ru...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Sigrid Carrera sigrid.carr...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, [...] can someone enlighten me please? What is ICLA or a non-CLA? I have no idea and would like to know, what you're talking about. Here is the ASF's ICLA: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt Note: this is *not* a copyright assignment. People who contribute code, documentation, or other changes to the ASF retain full copyright of their work. All this ICLA does is establish clearly that the contributor grants to the ASF has all necessary rights (within their ability to do so) to distribute this Work. Thanks, that does help. Sigrid -- 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means there is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm missing something here? LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? -Keith -- 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 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means there is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm missing something here? It is true that the only license that matters is the least restrictive one, but people usually add licenses and so I was following that method. If you decide to throw the others away as pointless if Apache is chosen for a change, that would be an optimization. -Keith -- 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] Triple licensing?
Am 14.06.2011 11:34, schrieb Keith Curtis: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means there is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm missing something here? It is true that the only license that matters is the least restrictive one, Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible to the least restrictive license you offer. but people usually add licenses and so I was following that method. If you decide to throw the others away as pointless if Apache is chosen for a change, that would be an optimization. -Keith -- 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable. 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 June 2011 11:38, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible to the least restrictive license you offer. Okay, good point. Anyway, I'm just thinking of a way for Apache people to contribute to now. It seems there is excitement over there, but they don't have something that builds, etc. It seems like perhaps half will be blocked for some time. You could let some people work here and create a tree with a queue of changes made by Apache contributors that Apache could adopt when they are ready. That could be a useful gift and a way for everyone to work now. I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and writing it in Javascript. Seems to me that without a web based version both LibreO and OOo could become irrelevant anyway. Since LibO is already solidly in the desktop groove it makes much more efficient use of resources for Apache OOo to go to the web and also fits the Apache culture better. Files would be interchangeable between desktop and web, 100% through odf. OK, it's a big ask but this is probably the only opportunity that will arise for such a big shift in strategy. This strategy would mean anyone needing OOo now has LibO for continuity while the web version is being created so if it takes a couple of years it is not a disaster. Better to spend time on long term sustainability than patching up and sorting out code that really duplicates what is already available at LibO. Ok IBM symphony might be an issue in that scenario but the project is not there simply to support that product and I see wider and higher priorities. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 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] Triple licensing?
Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 19:04, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and writing it in Javascript. Seems to me that without a web based version both LibreO and OOo could become irrelevant anyway. Since LibO is already solidly in the desktop groove it makes much more efficient use of resources for Apache OOo to go to the web and also fits the Apache culture better. Files would be interchangeable between desktop and web, 100% through odf. OK, it's a big ask but this is probably the only opportunity that will arise for such a big shift in strategy. This strategy would mean anyone needing OOo now has LibO for continuity while the web version is being created so if it takes a couple of years it is not a disaster. Better to spend time on long term sustainability than patching up and sorting out code that really duplicates what is already available at LibO. Ok IBM symphony might be an issue in that scenario but the project is not there simply to support that product and I see wider and higher priorities. If I'm not mistaken, the SC sees LibreOffice as remaining a firmly desktop-based suite, although they are thinking about a complementary Web-based component of some kind. I must admit that I'd like the software to remain on my computer without me hanging from strings rooted somewhere on the Web or in a cloud (not even a local one). -- David Nelson -- 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] Triple licensing?
Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 20:49, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and writing it in Javascript. It's already been done: http://www.webodf.org/ Well that's only an ODF compatibility library, not an entire office suite package... -- David Nelson -- 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable. Right, Simon. ... but (you saw that coming) would TDF/LO accept commits into the repository that were only licensed ALv2? Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2 license(*). Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it, then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF repository arises. Cheers, -g (*) strictly speaking, you do not offer code to the ASF under any specific license. your ICLA grants the ASF a right to release your code under a license of its choosing. -- 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:16, Greg Stein wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable. Right, Simon. ... but (you saw that coming) would TDF/LO accept commits into the repository that were only licensed ALv2? I'm pretty sure they would, yes, since it in no way inhibits outbound licensing under LGPLv3, but of course it's for others here to agree :-) Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2 license(*). The question would then appear to be whether Apache would accept contributions under just the Apache License, without an ICLA (since there are quite a few people here who object to any form of CLA). Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it, then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF repository arises. Presumably anyone can do that porting, not just the original contributor? 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable. Here is a thougt, what if i just create a patch for Apache and submit the same patch to LibO? How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code around, but what about generating code for both? 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 -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org -- 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] Triple licensing?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 14/06/2011 15:31, Alexandro Colorado wrote: How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code around, but what about generating code for both? As a practical matter, the code would have to modified to work as expected with at least one, if not both projects. How much modification would be required, depends upon what the code does, and how deeply into other code it interacts. By way of example. You could dump the entire SQLite code into LibO, or Apache_OOo, with no modifications, if nothing called that code. However, for end users, that SQLite code would be useless, because there would be no way for them to create, edit, or retrieve data from an SQLite database. If code for the UI is included, so that end users can create, edit, or modify SQLite databases, then the code (SQLite + UI code dump) may have to be massaged to fit project guidelines, fix bugs, or other things. jonathon - -- If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting. If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth requesting. DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN95bgAAoJEERA7YuLpVrV/dsIAJs6sdm+5OdWVwZP91obP16Z HHSeThNjRrIMayGPQCA04HFlG2GwuSXl5MDISAa4zC8gwmJaACt0qDHCVNWNRZ5x yIxJiaz+ODqdLHUuw3aOpaTjMumgd86LoJRkMGx/mqZUTgd4XqR+287M02EoozPl C9WhU8k43UI5ppOcHDA46pcJTq9L6IGWkOqN+k8yORlyCN+Q9IMLCDA2DWbzzmKb D4ptT39IUWS0OySkeU2Y2HmBfqK4eRl1hX2seXwn6azF7PqPtbn7Ot9o3wtbu11n tPlTYjvSgb/no2kSZS3WaGcT5hwWsfjxroDT56QB/qEaPcW2Og/ZSvMoAzRwkYo= =Ietw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:39, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:31, Alexandro Colorado wrote: Here is a thougt, what if i just create a patch for Apache and submit the same patch to LibO? How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code around, but what about generating code for both? As far as I can tell, you could simply make your contribution in both places. Yup. If Keith has an ICLA on file, then he could get voted in as a committer and apply the patch. If not a committer, then sending the patch to the list is a Contribution, allowing the ASF to apply the patch and (re)license under the ALv2 when it makes a release. 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Greg Stein wrote: For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not be able to take it.[1] Is the provenance that TDF secures at present sufficient for Apache's purposes? I'm not sure why people have an aversion to an ICLA. Probably out of scope here. One of those things that just has to be accepted, like Apache using Svn :-) 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 14:04, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Greg Stein wrote: For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not be able to take it.[1] Is the provenance that TDF secures at present sufficient for Apache's purposes? Doubtful. We can't really depend upon third-parties to do provenance the way that we'd like. The lack of any form of CLA would clearly be an issue for us. I'm not sure why people have an aversion to an ICLA. Probably out of scope here. One of those things that just has to be accepted, like Apache using Svn :-) Yup. Just noting my wonderment. 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: That is great news! Reading over the archives, I was surprised how some people who wished to contribute to both LOo and OOo were turned away (with a we don't want your kind here), and so seeing how LOo would now be open to itself accepting patches and code under AL is a welcome step forward! The frustration is because of the cost of forks. Some people argue that forks are okay because they've happened before, but that is like advocating for murder because it has happened before. This fork will waste lots of community resources and it already has. That can cause people to get upset. Here is my case study on the Ubuntu / Debian fork: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558 I have decided to make another case study for a future version of my book now that the podling was accepted. These are my notes so far: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567 Anyway, I suspect that much of the expertise in the incubation project would be blocked, and the codebases are similar now, so anyone who is frustrated that they can't contribute unless they want to work on infrastructure could come over here while they wait. This idea is a way to decrease the inefficiency of the current situation and help improve relations so I hope Apache consider it. I believe LibreOffice is not turning down contributors currently. Regards, -Keith -- 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] Triple licensing?
Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? -Keith -- 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
