incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kucka...@ping.de>
Subject Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:21:16 GMT
The reason for my questions is that I hope that answers might in some
way potentially help to avoid separate code bases for OpenOffice.org /
LibreOffice or at least make it possible to avoid that for parts of the
code.

Some kind of reasonable relation between Lotus Symphony and
Openoffice.org / LibreOffice obviously is needed.

***

My opinion is that some kind of copyleft license might be better suited
for this type of software than a non-copyleft license. The difference
between libraries, frameworks etc. which are mostly used by developers
and end user applications might be decisive.

I am aware of great existing proprietary products usable by end users
built using software produced in ASF projects but I can not point to any
ASF application which is easily usable by non-developer end users (I
would be glad to be corrected ;-). Maybe that has something to do with
the license.

At the same time I think that a strong community around a project is
(regularly) more important than the license used by it.

In other words: perhaps there are parts of OpenOffice.org for which the
Apache License 2 is more appropriate than it is for other parts.

Cheers,
Andreas
---

Am 04.06.2011 13:35, schrieb Sam Ruby:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
wrote:
>
>> > If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
> not an appropriate choice in this situation?


Am 04.06.2011 13:35, schrieb Sam Ruby:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
wrote:
>>
>> So my question to IBM is:
>> Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if
>> only parts of it) ?
>
> While I work for IBM, I don't work for that part of IBM.  That being
> said, I do believe that we already have an answer to that question.
> IBM has indicated that they are willing to contribute to a project
> made available under the Apache License, Version 2.0, which is a
> recognized Open Source license.  Some of these contributions will be
> derived from the current IBM Lotus Symphony offering.
>
> As you are undoubtedly aware, IBM contributes to a number of projects,
> including Linux.  Contributions to each project are made consistent
> with the license terms of that project.
>
>> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
>
> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>
> - Sam Ruby


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message