2012/11/28 Rob Weir <[email protected]> > 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 >
Presumably, Rob, that would work for Apache as well - or is it a case of *quod licet Iovi non licet bovi* ? As we know, it takes two to tango.... Henri
