Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2013-01-02 Thread Italo Vignoli 
On 1/2/13 8:32 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:

> The problem at Apache OpenOffice is IBM with its attitude vs free
> software, which does not change with time. Apache OpenOffice is free
> software, althoug the presence of IBM behind the project - together with
> the permissive license - is scaring for volunteers (as it is
> demonstrated by history).

I think it is important to add that the problem is the software group at
IBM, and not IBM as a company, although I would not mention IBM in ANY
of our documents or web pages.

We have decided a long time ago at BoD level to ignore AOO and IBM in
every document originating from TDF, and the marketing is leading on
this specific decision.

I have not mentioned AOO and/or IBM in any presentation I have made
since June 2011, and I have not answered any question on the subject
(although I always get the question about AOO).

In order to avoid flames and FUD attacks (Mr Robert Weir is a global
authority on FUD), please do not mention AOO and IBM when preparing
LibreOffice 4.0 marketing materials.

-- 
Italo Vignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com
mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316...@messagenet.it
skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vign...@gmail.com

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2013-01-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton 
Michael Meeks and I are completely familiar with the differences in our 
preferences for the licenses that we're willing to contribute under.  I fully 
recognize Michael's declaration.  This reply is simply an opportunity to note 
that Michael's response is a great example of different perspectives that 
people can arrive at and be completely clear about it.  

I completely accept and support Michael's personal view.  The musing below came 
to mind when I saw his response.  They are not meant in any way as a challenge. 
 It is simply my own stand and entirely about what is under my own control.

 - Dennis

RELATED MUSING

I am reminded of what led me to craft, several years ago, a version of the 
modified BSD License for work that I was supporting.  (Some of that work, under 
that license, has been part of OpenOffice source code bodies.)  

For my solo development projects, my current preference is for the Apache 
License (v2) because it is more specific and it makes assertions about any 
patents I might happen to also have.  But I am also happy to work on BSD- and 
MIT-licensed projects and contribute back under those license. (The MPL is too 
complicated for my brain and I shall avoid it because it is a reciprocal 
license more like the [L]GPL than BSD or ALv2.)

My intention is simple: To provide users of my code with very easy ways to know 
that their use of the code is safe and there are simple requirements for 
keeping it that way.  The only limitation was an attribution requirement.  
Additional practices were recommended, but the enforceable requirement was that 
simple.  (My favorite general copyright license is the Creative Commons 
Attribute (CC-By) license.  The simple deed of that license is my absolute 
favorite.)

A companion consideration for me is to assure recipients of my code that it has 
clean provenance and that I have demonstrated the right to license my 
contribution the way I do.  To the extend I derive code from another source, I 
make it very clear what the derivation is and that my code's dependence on it 
is both clean in compliance with conditions that apply to the dependency.  This 
is also an element of scholarship that is important to me and, I suspect, it is 
part of the reason that the licenses I do favor have been grouped as "Academic 
Licenses" by Lawrence Rosen.

This attention to provenance goes beyond what licenses say.  It is part of my 
commitment that recipients can satisfy themselves that the code is safe to use 
and that any limitations are clear and understandable.  (I am very careful to 
avoid examining or using [L]GPL source code, because I don't want there to be 
any question that I have misappropriated any code under such a license.  My 
handling of code provenance also supports downstream users having that 
assurance.)

This is all on behalf of downstream recipients and the confidence I want them 
to have in easily determining permissible usage.  

Under current law practically everywhere, every developer has automatic, 
exclusive copyright on their own original work (when not done for hire).  The 
developer has (apart from some special exceptions that do not concern us here) 
exclusive legal rights over specific uses of their work and licensing of those 
uses to others.  So long as that is the legal foundation, those choices are 
ours individually.

-Original Message-
From: Michael Meeks [mailto:michael.me...@suse.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 13:40
To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Cc: 'webmaster-Kracked_P_P'; discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences


On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 20:53 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules
> for Apache committers.  It satisfies me that anyone who receives code
> from me can do essentially all of the things that I can do with it and
> they are assured that I can't revoke that grant.

This commonality of rights and lack of revocation is broadly the same
for LGPLv3+/MPLv2 licensing too; it doesn't seem particularly
distinctive to me.

What most satisfies me is that those I share my work with are obliged
to either contribute their changes back for the common good. Personally
I am deeply suspicious of the commitment to code-sharing and community
of those who will not do that, but it's easy for them not to use the
code and they are more than welcome to go and not share with each other
elsewhere of course :-) Indeed - if I had to contribute small changes to
such a codebase where the majority of contributors -to-that-code-base-
thought that this was a good way to go, I'd be inclined to muck-in with
that - but that's emphatically not the case for LibreOffice.

All the best,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant id

Re: [us-marketing] Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2013-01-02 Thread Italo Vignoli 
On 1/2/13 6:59 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:

> LibreOffice is a true free libre open source software (FLOSS) whereas
> Apache's project is not recognized to be a free software by the Free
> Software Foundation.

Apache Software Foundation is definitely supporting free software, and
is one of the oldets, largest and most estimated foundation in FLOSS.
The Document Foundation is a user of the Apache Web Server.

I would avoid writing that Apache is not free software in ANY of our
documents or web pages (actually, I would veto such a statement, as it
does not reflect our attitude vs ASF as a free software foundation,
which is extremely positive).

Actually, The Document Foundation development environment has been
inspired by ASF "rules for revolutionaries", which you can find here:
http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html.

Apache OpenOffice is a very peculiar project inside the Apache Software
Foundation, as is the only desktop software in a number of server side
software.

The problem at Apache OpenOffice is IBM with its attitude vs free
software, which does not change with time. Apache OpenOffice is free
software, althoug the presence of IBM behind the project - together with
the permissive license - is scaring for volunteers (as it is
demonstrated by history).

In any case, I would not use the license as a differenciator between AOO
and LibreOffice, because the license does not create a difference for
the average user.

I would just write that LibreOffice has a larger number of developers
because the copyleft license has been instrumental for attracting more
volunteer developers. And a larger number of developers translates into
a better product (in the medium to long term).

> LibreOffice has received the backing from several commercial partners such
> as Red Hat, Canonical, Intel, Google, etc.

OK

-- 
Italo Vignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com
mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316...@messagenet.it
skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vign...@gmail.com

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2013-01-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton 
If you are going to quote the Free Software Foundation, please provide a link 
to the appropriate information. Note that one such statement, now 18 months old 
(before Apache OpenOffice had even organized as a podling and produced any 
releases), is less absolute: 
<http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice>.  You can see how 
Apache OpenOffice extensions are now managed by consulting the 
SourceForge-hosted download and extension arrangements.  These are under 
continual improvement thanks to the good offices of SourceForge.net.

Also, the FSF doesn't consider licenses that are more-generous than GPL to be 
for Free OSS software.  From their perspective, By that logic, Free BSD and 
Open BSD are not free.   Welcome to the post-1984 Brave New World.  I think 
developers are free to determine what protects their freedom, and they do so.

Note that, no matter what additional actions are permitted for ALv2-licensed 
software, the Apache Software Foundation and Apache OpenOffice provide 
complete, fully-archived, source code of all releases and that is an obligation 
under the ASF charter to operate in the public interest.  That the ASF is more 
tolerant of kinds of forking than the FSF has nothing to do with what users can 
expect of Apache OpenOffice as an open-source project.

The OSI and its Open Source Definition (OSD) are more tolerant.  See 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition> (and the quote from FSF 
there).

I had thought that this discussion had gotten beyond ideological hyperbole.  It 
is disappointing to have it recapped otherwise.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Immanuel Giulea [mailto:giulea.imman...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 09:59
To: Ian Lynch
Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org; Marketing; market...@us.libreoffice.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

Thank you everyone for your participation, it was of much enlightenment.

LibreOffice is a true free libre open source software (FLOSS) whereas
Apache's project is not recognized to be a free software by the Free
Software Foundation.
LibreOffice has received the backing from several commercial partners such
as Red Hat, Canonical, Intel, Google, etc.


Immanuel


On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:

> On 2 January 2013 16:00, Tanstaafl  wrote:
>
> > I think the most important distinction to an end user, aside from knowing
> > that both allow them to *use* the software in any way they see fit -
> > personal, commercial, etc, is that the LO project is able to benefit from
> > AOO code, but AOO is not allowed to benefit from the LO code.
> >
>
> Not strictly speaking accurate in that GPL software could not be *used*, as
> in integrated into a closed source application, even if the user saw fit to
> do it. But in general the essence is correct. Better or worse is a matter
> of opinion.
>
>
> On 2013-01-01 1:17 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/31/2012 02:40 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:
> >>
> >>> In the marketing materials that I am writing covering LO vs AOO, I was
> >>> wondering if it would be relevant to go into an explanation about why
> the
> >>> GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a "true open
> >>> source".
> >>>
> >>
> >> An average user does not care and will likely only be confused by any
> >> claim that LO is better than AOO based on LO using a more restrictive
> >> license or some sort of moral high ground that people should only use
> >> software using this license.  I expect that the more a person cares
> >> about the distinction, the more likely they will not need marketing
> >> material to explain it to them.
> >>
> >>  I found this great document that explains the three "most common"
> >>> licences:
> >>> ASL, GPL and LGPL (MPL is not included) (1, 2)
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the
> >>> information
> >>> and apply it on the materials?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Almost none. If you do desire to add something, I would probably say
> >> something like this (but with cleaned up wording and more thought).
> >> "Project contributors will note ". Or have a section
> >> that calls out advantages specifically for people that changes stuff and
> >> contribute it back. The license is a choice, and some will prefer it and
> >> some will not.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers and Happy New Year
> >>>
> >>> Immanuel
> >>>
> >>> (1)
>

Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2013-01-02 Thread Immanuel Giulea 
Thank you everyone for your participation, it was of much enlightenment.

LibreOffice is a true free libre open source software (FLOSS) whereas
Apache's project is not recognized to be a free software by the Free
Software Foundation.
LibreOffice has received the backing from several commercial partners such
as Red Hat, Canonical, Intel, Google, etc.


Immanuel


On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:

> On 2 January 2013 16:00, Tanstaafl  wrote:
>
> > I think the most important distinction to an end user, aside from knowing
> > that both allow them to *use* the software in any way they see fit -
> > personal, commercial, etc, is that the LO project is able to benefit from
> > AOO code, but AOO is not allowed to benefit from the LO code.
> >
>
> Not strictly speaking accurate in that GPL software could not be *used*, as
> in integrated into a closed source application, even if the user saw fit to
> do it. But in general the essence is correct. Better or worse is a matter
> of opinion.
>
>
> On 2013-01-01 1:17 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/31/2012 02:40 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:
> >>
> >>> In the marketing materials that I am writing covering LO vs AOO, I was
> >>> wondering if it would be relevant to go into an explanation about why
> the
> >>> GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a "true open
> >>> source".
> >>>
> >>
> >> An average user does not care and will likely only be confused by any
> >> claim that LO is better than AOO based on LO using a more restrictive
> >> license or some sort of moral high ground that people should only use
> >> software using this license.  I expect that the more a person cares
> >> about the distinction, the more likely they will not need marketing
> >> material to explain it to them.
> >>
> >>  I found this great document that explains the three "most common"
> >>> licences:
> >>> ASL, GPL and LGPL (MPL is not included) (1, 2)
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the
> >>> information
> >>> and apply it on the materials?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Almost none. If you do desire to add something, I would probably say
> >> something like this (but with cleaned up wording and more thought).
> >> "Project contributors will note ". Or have a section
> >> that calls out advantages specifically for people that changes stuff and
> >> contribute it back. The license is a choice, and some will prefer it and
> >> some will not.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers and Happy New Year
> >>>
> >>> Immanuel
> >>>
> >>> (1)
> >>> http://www.openlogic.com/**Portals/172122/docs/**
> >>> understanding-the-three-most-**common-open-source-licenses.**pdf<
> http://www.openlogic.com/Portals/172122/docs/understanding-the-three-most-common-open-source-licenses.pdf
> >
> >>>
> >>> (2) http://www.slideshare.net/**slideshow/embed_code/10518967<
> http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/10518967>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@**
> documentfoundation.org
> > Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/**get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-**
> > unsubscribe/<
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/>
> > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/**
> > Netiquette 
> > List archive: http://listarchives.**
> documentfoundation.org/www/**discuss/<
> 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 <
> https://theingots.org/community/faq#7.0>
>
> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>
> 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
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> 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
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2013-01-02 Thread Ian Lynch 
On 2 January 2013 16:00, Tanstaafl  wrote:

> I think the most important distinction to an end user, aside from knowing
> that both allow them to *use* the software in any way they see fit -
> personal, commercial, etc, is that the LO project is able to benefit from
> AOO code, but AOO is not allowed to benefit from the LO code.
>

Not strictly speaking accurate in that GPL software could not be *used*, as
in integrated into a closed source application, even if the user saw fit to
do it. But in general the essence is correct. Better or worse is a matter
of opinion.


On 2013-01-01 1:17 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak  wrote:
>
>> On 12/31/2012 02:40 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:
>>
>>> In the marketing materials that I am writing covering LO vs AOO, I was
>>> wondering if it would be relevant to go into an explanation about why the
>>> GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a "true open
>>> source".
>>>
>>
>> An average user does not care and will likely only be confused by any
>> claim that LO is better than AOO based on LO using a more restrictive
>> license or some sort of moral high ground that people should only use
>> software using this license.  I expect that the more a person cares
>> about the distinction, the more likely they will not need marketing
>> material to explain it to them.
>>
>>  I found this great document that explains the three "most common"
>>> licences:
>>> ASL, GPL and LGPL (MPL is not included) (1, 2)
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the
>>> information
>>> and apply it on the materials?
>>>
>>
>> Almost none. If you do desire to add something, I would probably say
>> something like this (but with cleaned up wording and more thought).
>> "Project contributors will note ". Or have a section
>> that calls out advantages specifically for people that changes stuff and
>> contribute it back. The license is a choice, and some will prefer it and
>> some will not.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers and Happy New Year
>>>
>>> Immanuel
>>>
>>> (1)
>>> http://www.openlogic.com/**Portals/172122/docs/**
>>> understanding-the-three-most-**common-open-source-licenses.**pdf
>>>
>>> (2) 
>>> http://www.slideshare.net/**slideshow/embed_code/10518967
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
> discuss+help@**documentfoundation.org
> Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/**get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-**
> unsubscribe/
> 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 

Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables

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
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2013-01-02 Thread Tanstaafl 
I think the most important distinction to an end user, aside from 
knowing that both allow them to *use* the software in any way they see 
fit - personal, commercial, etc, is that the LO project is able to 
benefit from AOO code, but AOO is not allowed to benefit from the LO code.



On 2013-01-01 1:17 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak  wrote:

On 12/31/2012 02:40 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:

In the marketing materials that I am writing covering LO vs AOO, I was
wondering if it would be relevant to go into an explanation about why the
GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a "true open
source".


An average user does not care and will likely only be confused by any
claim that LO is better than AOO based on LO using a more restrictive
license or some sort of moral high ground that people should only use
software using this license.  I expect that the more a person cares
about the distinction, the more likely they will not need marketing
material to explain it to them.


I found this great document that explains the three "most common"
licences:
ASL, GPL and LGPL (MPL is not included) (1, 2)

Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the
information
and apply it on the materials?


Almost none. If you do desire to add something, I would probably say
something like this (but with cleaned up wording and more thought).
"Project contributors will note ". Or have a section
that calls out advantages specifically for people that changes stuff and
contribute it back. The license is a choice, and some will prefer it and
some will not.






Cheers and Happy New Year

Immanuel

(1)
http://www.openlogic.com/Portals/172122/docs/understanding-the-three-most-common-open-source-licenses.pdf

(2) http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/10518967






--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2013-01-01 Thread Andrew Douglas Pitonyak 

On 12/31/2012 02:40 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:

In the marketing materials that I am writing covering LO vs AOO, I was
wondering if it would be relevant to go into an explanation about why the
GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a "true open source".


An average user does not care and will likely only be confused by any 
claim that LO is better than AOO based on LO using a more restrictive 
license or some sort of moral high ground that people should only use 
software using this license.  I expect that the more a person cares 
about the distinction, the more likely they will not need marketing 
material to explain it to them.



I found this great document that explains the three "most common" licences:
ASL, GPL and LGPL (MPL is not included) (1, 2)

Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the information
and apply it on the materials?


Almost none. If you do desire to add something, I would probably say 
something like this (but with cleaned up wording and more thought). 
"Project contributors will note ". Or have a section 
that calls out advantages specifically for people that changes stuff and 
contribute it back. The license is a choice, and some will prefer it and 
some will not.







Cheers and Happy New Year

Immanuel

(1)
http://www.openlogic.com/Portals/172122/docs/understanding-the-three-most-common-open-source-licenses.pdf
(2) http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/10518967



--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2012-12-31 Thread Jonathan Aquilina 
Not sure if this will help http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html

but that site allows one to read the licenses in more detail.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:

>
> I dropped an important word:
>
> "I have *no* quarrel with others who want their code to be handled
> differently."
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 20:54
> To: 'webmaster-Kracked_P_P'; discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
>
> I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is
> more important.
>
> With regard to technicalities:
>
> It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code
> bases.  Period.  That's the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including
> Apache OpenOffice.
>
> On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the
> Free Software Foundation, and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice
> to incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code without consequence.  It is
> necessary to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that is
> derived from ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation.
>  (It is similar to employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.)
>
> I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological
> positions on where they are willing to contribute.
>
> I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for
> Apache committers.  It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me
> can do essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are
> assured that I can't revoke that grant.  I still have all of my rights to
> what I contribute.  That's where I stand with regard to licensing.  I have
> quarrel with others who want their code to be handled differently.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
>
>
> You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of
> what is the differences between them.  That said, it still is all about
> what the developer feels is a better license for their coding.  What I
> have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding
> under one type of licensing over another.  If they do not like the
> "default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute
> their coding to that project.
>
> The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO
> project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a
> more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted?  Can
> software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still
> gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other
> version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership"
> and no longer available for an open source project?
>
> On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.
> >
> > Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions
> does not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as
> use by individuals in their business or institutional activities.
> >
> >   - Dennis
> >
> > PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply
> Apache License.
> >
> > DETAILS
> >
> > Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF
> a perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is
> no transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was
> the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of
> ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)
> >
> > You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA)
> is here:
> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>.
> >
> > The key statement is this:
> >
> > "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
> >  and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
> >  You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
> >  Your Contributions."
> >
> > Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their
> own (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.
>  It is c

RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2012-12-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton 

I dropped an important word:

"I have *no* quarrel with others who want their code to be handled differently."

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 20:54
To: 'webmaster-Kracked_P_P'; discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is more 
important.

With regard to technicalities:

It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code bases. 
 Period.  That's the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including Apache 
OpenOffice.

On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the Free 
Software Foundation, and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice to 
incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code without consequence.  It is necessary 
to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that is derived from 
ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation.  (It is similar to 
employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.)

I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological positions on 
where they are willing to contribute.

I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for Apache 
committers.  It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me can do 
essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are assured that I 
can't revoke that grant.  I still have all of my rights to what I contribute.  
That's where I stand with regard to licensing.  I have quarrel with others who 
want their code to be handled differently.

 - Dennis   



-Original Message-
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences


You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of 
what is the differences between them.  That said, it still is all about 
what the developer feels is a better license for their coding.  What I 
have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding 
under one type of licensing over another.  If they do not like the 
"default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute 
their coding to that project.

The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO 
project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a 
more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted?  Can 
software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still 
gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other 
version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership" 
and no longer available for an open source project?

On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.
>
> Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not 
> raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by 
> individuals in their business or institutional activities.
>
>   - Dennis
>
> PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache 
> License.
>
> DETAILS
>
> Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a 
> perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is no 
> transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was the 
> case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of 
> ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)
>
> You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is 
> here:
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>.
>
> The key statement is this:
>
> "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
>  and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
>  You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
>  Your Contributions."
>
> Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own 
> (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It 
> is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.
>
> This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice 
> committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and 
> say nothing about patents).
>
> The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a 
> reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be provided in 
> source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no limitations on 
> the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded s

RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2012-12-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton 
I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is more 
important.

With regard to technicalities:

It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code bases. 
 Period.  That's the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including Apache 
OpenOffice.

On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the Free 
Software Foundation, and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice to 
incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code without consequence.  It is necessary 
to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that is derived from 
ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation.  (It is similar to 
employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.)

I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological positions on 
where they are willing to contribute.

I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for Apache 
committers.  It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me can do 
essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are assured that I 
can't revoke that grant.  I still have all of my rights to what I contribute.  
That's where I stand with regard to licensing.  I have quarrel with others who 
want their code to be handled differently.

 - Dennis   



-Original Message-
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences


You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of 
what is the differences between them.  That said, it still is all about 
what the developer feels is a better license for their coding.  What I 
have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding 
under one type of licensing over another.  If they do not like the 
"default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute 
their coding to that project.

The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO 
project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a 
more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted?  Can 
software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still 
gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other 
version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership" 
and no longer available for an open source project?

On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.
>
> Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not 
> raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by 
> individuals in their business or institutional activities.
>
>   - Dennis
>
> PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache 
> License.
>
> DETAILS
>
> Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a 
> perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is no 
> transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was the 
> case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of 
> ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)
>
> You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is 
> here:
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>.
>
> The key statement is this:
>
> "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
>  and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
>  You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
>  Your Contributions."
>
> Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own 
> (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It 
> is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.
>
> This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice 
> committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and 
> say nothing about patents).
>
> The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a 
> reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be provided in 
> source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no limitations on 
> the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside 
> of a [commercial] distributed service.
>
> The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does have 
> ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to express 
> their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such allegiance, 
> it is valuable to stick to the facts.
>
>   - Dennis
>
&g

Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2012-12-31 Thread webmaster-Kracked_P_P 


You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of 
what is the differences between them.  That said, it still is all about 
what the developer feels is a better license for their coding.  What I 
have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding 
under one type of licensing over another.  If they do not like the 
"default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute 
their coding to that project.


The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO 
project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a 
more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted?  Can 
software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still 
gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other 
version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership" 
and no longer available for an open source project?


On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.

Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not 
raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by 
individuals in their business or institutional activities.

  - Dennis

PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache 
License.

DETAILS

Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a 
perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is no 
transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was the case 
that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of ownership, 
as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)

You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is 
here:
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>.

The key statement is this:

"Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
 and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
 You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
 Your Contributions."

Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own (and 
derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It is 
contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.

This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice 
committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and say 
nothing about patents).

The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a 
reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be provided in 
source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no limitations on 
the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside of 
a [commercial] distributed service.

The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does have 
ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to express 
their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such allegiance, it 
is valuable to stick to the facts.

  - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[ ... ]
As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding
they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that
project the ownership of the coding.  Whether or not the "wording" is
stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have
told me.

[ ... ]





--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2012-12-31 Thread Immanuel Giulea 
I understand that differences between licences are technical and seem
trivial to end-users.

So if not the licences, how is LO different from AOO? In terms that
end-users can understand.

Immanuel
On Dec 31, 2012 8:29 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" 
wrote:

> That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.
>
> Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does
> not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by
> individuals in their business or institutional activities.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache
> License.
>
> DETAILS
>
> Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a
> perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is
> no transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was
> the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of
> ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)
>
> You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA)
> is here:
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>.
>
> The key statement is this:
>
>"Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
> and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
> You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
> Your Contributions."
>
> Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own
> (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It
> is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.
>
> This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that
> LibreOffice committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific
> licenses (and say nothing about patents).
>
> The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is
> not a reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be
> provided in source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no
> limitations on the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded
> system or inside of a [commercial] distributed service.
>
> The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does
> have ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to
> express their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such
> allegiance, it is valuable to stick to the facts.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
>
> [ ... ]
> >
>
> As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding
> they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that
> project the ownership of the coding.  Whether or not the "wording" is
> stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have
> told me.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> 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
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2012-12-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton 
That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it. 

Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not 
raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by 
individuals in their business or institutional activities.

 - Dennis

PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache 
License. 

DETAILS

Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a 
perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is no 
transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was the case 
that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of ownership, 
as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)  

You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is 
here: 
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>.

The key statement is this: 

   "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, 
You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to 
Your Contributions."

Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own (and 
derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It is 
contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.

This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice 
committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and say 
nothing about patents).

The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a 
reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be provided in 
source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no limitations on 
the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside of 
a [commercial] distributed service. 

The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does have 
ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to express 
their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such allegiance, it 
is valuable to stick to the facts.

 - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

[ ... ]
>

As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding 
they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that 
project the ownership of the coding.  Whether or not the "wording" is 
stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have 
told me.

[ ... ]


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

2012-12-31 Thread webmaster-Kracked_P_P 

On 12/31/2012 02:40 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:

Hello all,

In the marketing materials that I am writing covering LO vs AOO, I was
wondering if it would be relevant to go into an explanation about why the
GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a "true open source".

I found this great document that explains the three "most common" licences:
ASL, GPL and LGPL (MPL is not included) (1, 2)

Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the information
and apply it on the materials?


Cheers and Happy New Year

Immanuel

(1)
http://www.openlogic.com/Portals/172122/docs/understanding-the-three-most-common-open-source-licenses.pdf
(2) http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/10518967



As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding 
they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that 
project the ownership of the coding.  Whether or not the "wording" is 
stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have 
told me.


I really thing the whole thing comes down to the fact that the was LO 
does its licensing is better for the individual developers, or so I have 
been told.  If the people who are developing the project feels that one 
type of licensing is better for them and their work than another one, 
then they may avoid a project that does not have their preferred licenses.


I no longer write programs for a living, but did back in the mainframe 
and early PC days.  I wrote a lot of packages for others, but for those 
things I wrote for myself for my PCs, I wanted to make sure, in the end, 
I owned what I wrote and no one could claim ownership over it.




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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