incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2011 22:24:18 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Keith Curtis <keithcu@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 6:12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice
> 
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> > Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically,  TDF
> > and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms.  Instead they
> >  worked out terms with us.  We aren't all that picky about
> > new  initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process
> > to ferret out  sustainable activity from those that aren't.
> 
> It is great that Oracle gave  up OO rather than sit on it. We should be
> grateful to Oracle for this gift.  Note that LibreOffice deserves most
> of the credit for this  opportunity.
> 
> I wouldn't expect Oracle to give it to the TDF. Apache has  IBM backing
> which looks more credible.
> 
> >
> > I'm happy that  there are a number of people who still care about
> > the OOo brand that are  willing to work here under our rules.
> > For those that aren't, and are  more interested in the LO brand, have
> > an appropriate amount of fun.   We'd still like you to collaborate with
> > us even if it just means the  collaboration is one-way- we're funny
> > like that.  If our code improves  your project, all we ask is that
> > you respect the license it came  with.
> 
> It isn't about the OOo brand or the LO brand. This is about  the
> codebase, and getting as many people working in the same codebase  as
> possible. That enforces division of labor. You can help fix  each
> other's bugs if you share the same bug database. LibreOffice  has
> already moved to GIT. It will get harder to share code as the  trees
> diverge. You say you won't be the benefit of LibreOfice's work and  yet
> I am amazed you don't care.

We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept
voluntary contributions.  Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository
looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that.  What we're
hoping for is to attract devs who work on LO to join our project as
committers, so whatever contributions they'd like to offer can get folded
back to us without a lot of fuss.

As I said earlier, the hope is that LO will pull from us for the core
bits, and almost immediately we'll have the bits stored in svn mirrored
to our github acct to facilitate that.  While I wouldn't recommend this
any time soon, at some point the ASF may try to tie access to the OOo brand
to the use of a substantial amount of our software, so as not to confuse
the public about the nature of the use of the mark.

> 
> Are you saying you don't want  LibreOffice to relicense your Apache
> licensed work? Note of course you can  only ask ;-) It seems a
> paradoxical thing to ask for, to create a permissive  license, and then
> insist it stay  permissive.

I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an
apache.org list.  Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects
to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that 
doesn't invalidate our license.  There are treatments of this subject
by FSF peeps on the net if you are interested (no, I'm not going to
look them up here).

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


Mime
View raw message