[Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
If I understand correctly: What is developed by the Apache license can be used at LibreOffice but what is done by LibreOffice can not be used by OpenOffice as OpenOffice would move to offer the principles of under the GPL. I'm not sure this is entirely correct. TDF allowed itself some license flexibility by asking that all contributions to LO be licensed under both the LGPL and the MPL. Originally, TDF took OOo code under the LGPL, combined it with dual licensed LGPL/MPL contributions, and licensed the combined work under the LGPL, as required by the LGPL. That situation will likely change in the near future. The original OOo code will shortly be released under the Apache License (AL). The Apache License allows anyone to take the code and use it in a proprietary work. Once the OOo code is released under the AL, I expect to see many people recompiling OOo and selling it, some with no modifications, some with their own proprietary closed-source enhancements. The Apache Foundation will also likely to be hosting an Apache OpenOffice project where people can make contributions to that codebase, with the contributions also licensed under the Apache License. TDF will be able to use those contributions in LO. Everyone else will also be able to use those contributions, in both open-source and proprietary projects. Here's the tricky part. With the release of the original OOo code under the Apache License, it may now be possible, depending on license compatibility, to take the original OOo under the AL, combine it with LO modifications under the MPL, and incorporate that code into a closed-source project. If that is possible, we may also soon see the LO code incorporated into proprietary products. I'm not an expert on the compatibility of these two licenses however, either with each other or with proprietary code. Can anyone offer an opinion or shed some light on this? Which of the following could occur, once the original OOo codebase is released under the Apache License? 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? Regardless of the above two situations, the Apache Software Foundation will not take LO modifications dual-licensed under the LGPL and MPL and include them in the Apache OpenOffice distribution. There may be no license barrier to that, but ASF has a policy barrier that prevents it: the ASF has a policy that all code distributed at the ASF must be licensed only under the Apache License. The ASF will not incorporate any code that requires a different license. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hello All, I'm going to try to address as many of the concerns raised as I can in one email. I'm not suggesting that anyone go work for IBM. In fact, I'm suggesting just the opposite; I'm suggesting that we all work together to get IBM working for us. Here's the deal. IBM is the main proponent of the proposed Apache OpenOffice project. They are doing this in their own self-interest. They want to get Apache Licensed contributions that they can use in their proprietary products. However, the OpenOffice code has been donated to the Apache Software Foundation, not to IBM. While IBM may want to exclusively run the project over at the ASF, if we want to get involved, the ASF is not going to allow IBM to dominate. We will have a say in how the Apache OpenOffice project evolves. I don't know what vision IBM has for the project. I don't know what code contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I don't know what they will be. I don't know what contributions members of the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make. I do know this however. There is currently an open invitation for us to get involved. If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the project. We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM. Basically, we can get IBM working for us. If we wait however, we risk being locked out. The open invitation is get involved is only valid for during the incubation proposal stage. After that, we will need prove our merit and approval to become a member. So if you sign up now, it is no risk and no obligation. IBM will be contributing as little or as much to the project as they want. They will be contributing some, and holding back some to use only in their proprietary products. The TDF community can do exactly the same thing--it can contribute some, while holding back some for LibreOffice only. This again can and will be worked out as the project evolves. 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. But the time to jump in is now. We can't wait. Allen ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hello Kohei, Thank you for your reply. I can certainly understand your sentiment, and I completely respect it. Just to clarify one thing: Suggesting that we somehow owe anything to them just because of the past is, to put it mildly insane, and in some way insulting. I certainly never made such a suggestion and never would. I just want to make that clear in case you thought I did or if anyone reading your reply thought did. And if someone else made that suggestion, I would also be insulted by it, because it complete ignores the history and value of past community contributions. Best Regards, Allen ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Greetings All, Some of you will remember me as a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community. In fact, back in the day, it was sometimes just myself and Michael Meeks who were openly complaining on the OOo mailing list about Sun's handling of the community :-) I'm writing today about what is going on over at the Apache project. When I heard Oracle was donating the OpenOffice code to the Apache project, I headed over there to see what was going on. I offer this brief report to bring everyone up to speed: - According to officers of the Apache Software Foundation, Oracle donated OpenOffice to the ASF by executing the ASF's standard copyright grant. This grant allows the ASF to release the OpenOffice code under the Apache License. - The ASF however has a process to accept a project. The OpenOffice project is now in the proposal stage. If accepted, it will join the Apache Incubator and become a podling, which is basically a project-in-development. During the podling stage, the project would be expected to complete the steps needed to become a full ASF project. Among other requirements, the podling project has to review the copyright history of all code to ensure it has a clean title and is or can be licensed under the Apache License. If it completes that process, it then becomes a full Apache project. See https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/incubation_at_apache_what_s - While the code donation was made by Oracle, the primary champion in the effort to get the code accepted as is Apache Project is IBM. Let's have no illusions or delusions about this. IBM has a self-interested motive in championing this project. Basically, IBM would like to setup a community where both it and other contributors make contributions under the Apache License, and then IBM would take some or all of those contributions and use them in its proprietary products which includes for example IBM Lotus Symphony. The Apache License specifically allows this. In fact, the Apache License allows anyone to take the code and use it in their own project, open source or closed source. In the Apache world, that is considered a feature not a bug. The ASF would like to see as many people using the code as possible, and for that reason, their license is as liberal as possible, allowing anyone to use the code. That is exactly the reason that IBM is championing this as an Apache Project, rather than a LGPL project. And that brings me (almost) to the point of this email. Any code contributed to the Apache OpenOffice project could be used by anyone, including The Document Foundation, which can take the code, integrate it into LibreOffice, and release it under the LGPL. Sounds like a good deal, huh? Here's the rub. IBM, as I mentioned, is doing this for self-interested reasons. I would like to propose the members of LibreOffice community get involved in this for similarly self-interested reasons. I understand there are some bad feelings toward IBM. Basically, there is the perception that IBM has been taking OpenOffice code all of these years and contributing little back to the OpenOffice community. That is probably true. As far as I can see, IBM has at least been taking much more than it has given back. I'm not sure that can continue though, because as the champion of the proposed Apache OpenOffice project, IBM is going to have to contribute. So you might say though, why not just sit back, let IBM make contributions to Apache OpenOffice, and then we'll just cherry pick what we want for LibreOffice. Well that would certainly work, but I don't think it would work as well as getting involved. There is also another player in this, and that is the Apache Software Foundation. The ASF is an honorable organization with a long track record in open source and they are dedicated to fostering a community. In the ASF, anyone can contribute. Contributions and participation are made by individuals, not by or on behalf of companies or organizations. The community determines the direction of the project. Membership in the community is based on merit, which is measured not just by code contributions, but by anything that supports the project, which could also include documentation, testing, bug reports, etc. So while the LibreOffice could just sit back and cherry-pick the project, if its members get involved, they can help determine the direction of the project, ensuring that the project direction and design decision are compatible with LibreOffice and have the maximum value to LibreOffice. The ASF has no problems with this--in fact, they encourage it. Just as IBM is getting involved in an Apache OpenOffice project because they want to use the code in their products, the ASF will welcome TDF members getting involved for the same self-interested reason, to use the code in LibreOffice. Critically, at this stage in the process, everyone has a free pass to get involved. Normally, once the project is up and running, you would
[Libreoffice] OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
See the thread titled OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal post on June 1 by Luke Kowalski of Oracle http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/threa d ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
On Windows it wants to package jre which is not there. So: $ touch ../../solver/300/wntmsci12.pro/bin/jre-6u22-windows-i586.exe $ dmake openofficedev OK, so there's a bug. It should only attempt to include the JRE when you build openofficewithjre target - so apparently the Product name used when building the dev version triggers the inclusion of the JRE. At one point, the Sun guys decided that all Dev versions of OpenOffice would include the JRE, while release builds would be distributed both with and without the JRE. So this was intentional at one time, but I agree it should be undone. To take this a step further, if it were up to me, I would make all Dev builds *not* include the JRE, since LO will use an existing JRE if one is installed, and that will generally be the case (a JRE was probably installed with the last release version of LO). Just in case though, if no JRE is installed, LO will give the user a warning message when it is run and the user can download and install the JRE separately. This should be sufficient for Dev builds. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] FW: [PATCH] Introduce HideDisabledMenuItems style setting
I'm introducing a setting that decides if disabled menu items should be hidden. Currently the code is broken in the sense that items are hidden if disabled on all platforms and UpdateApplicationSettings which theortically does that is a) counter-intuitive and b) not set by platforms. I'm not sure I understand. I absolutely would hate it when the disabled menu-items were hidden instead of just greyed out. The current behavior is that if a menu item is disabled BY THE DISTRIBUTION PACKAGER OR SITE INSTALLATION SYSADMIN, then the menu item is hidden in LO, not grey'out out. Its not a question of what the user wants, its a question of what the distribution packager or site administrator is trying to accomplish. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] FW: [PATCH] Introduce HideDisabledMenuItems style setting
No objections from my part to fully hide, removed / not-allowed-by-sysadmin ones, but when it comes to hiding entries that cannot be performed at the moment for whatever reason, then I say no, thanks. That is the way it currently works under Windows. The former uses a permanent switch, while the latter depends on context or state (for example, I believe Save is grey'ed out when a document is open but not modified). I assume (hope) we are just talking about platforms where it is not currently working like this. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Installing beta versions replacing stable versions
I would +100 this suggestion. AFAIK, under Windows, there is no easy way to do a side-by-side installation, and certainly no way within the reach of a typical user. Without the ability to do a side-by-side, many users are not going to test the Beta builds, and the quality of the release will suffer. I would propose that all Beta and Dev releases (which are sorely needed BTW, since the recent Beta releases have been Dev quality, not Beta quality) would install to a Dev location, and only the RC's and final releases would install to the release location. AFAIK (at least for the predecessor project OpenOffice.org), there is (was?) a well-documented switch that changed the product name and installation location. Under Windows, it would for example change the UpgradeCode property in the Windows Installer file, the program base directory path and base registry key, and the ProductKey and UserInstallation values in bootstrap.ini. These parameters need to be set and tested by the person who creates the build. I'm not sure if a patch is needed, but even if it is, there would need to be a commitment to use it and an understanding how it would be used. If we come to such an agreement and a patch is needed, I would be happy to look into it, but in order to prevent that effort from being wasted, IMO, we should discuss and agree first on whether this is something we want to do. Thank you, Allen ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
