On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM, M Henri Day <[email protected]> wrote: > 2012/11/28 Hagar Delest <[email protected]> > >> Le 28/11/2012 19:43, M Henri Day a écrit : >> >>> Agree - but the responsibility for the forking should be placed squarely >>> where it lies - on Oracle. Moreover, the forked paths would have >>> automatically rejoined had Oracle, when it decided to dump OOo, chosen to >>> assign it to the Document Foundation, which was already up and running and >>> which requested that this be done. Instead, the firm decided to assign all >>> the rights to Apache, in the knowledge that doing so would perpetuate the >>> fork. Thank you, Mr Ellison.... >>> >> >> But you're forgetting the license difference! >> Apache license has been chosen because it allows a more permissive reuse >> of the code. Of course I understand the fears that it can draw but it can >> also attract big players. Even if some code is note given back to the >> community, they know that if they want to benefit from the support of the >> community, the community need to know about the new code those big players >> are injecting too. >> So let them customize for their own need and help the community with code >> that is not strategical for them, with manpower, with ODF support, ... >> >> BTW, Isn't LO investigating a license change (to Al v2, like AOO)? What >> would happen to the already submitted code that is based on OOo code and >> not AOO? The mere thinking about switching is a proof that in the end, the >> Apache license may be the best way to attract resources. >> >> Hagar > > > Hagar, are the differences between the Apache License version 2 and the GNU > Lesser General Public License version 3 really so great that they preclude > a recombination of the forked paths ? In my view, it should be possible to > overcome the differences, but the longer things go on in the present > manner, the greater the risk that both sides will become more and more > entrenched in their present positions. In any event, my suggestion to the > OP was based upon her evident desire to obtain an updated Swedish-language > version of the suite, one of which is offered by LibreOffice, but alas, not > (yet ?) by Apache OpenOffice.... >
When LO wanted to change frm LGPL to MPL they simply sent a note to their developers and asked them to return a statement saying that they agreed to include MPL license on their past and future contributions. It was simple and painless. If they wanted to end the fork a similar note, asking for agreement to attach the Apache License, would also work. -Rob > Henri --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
