incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2011 14:00:04 GMT
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws <oolst@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>
>> 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?
>
> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.

This question can be looked at from multiple perspectives.  I will
start by acknowledging your perspective as a valid perspective.  I
will close by asking that you acknowledge mine in a likewise manner.

In order to cast the widest possible net, it is important to pick a
license that seeks to permit the widespread use of the code, being
inclusive of both Free and proprietary software products alike.

I fully understand that that is just one possible criteria for a
license choice.   While other choices may make sense depending on the
specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.

Before proceeding, can I get you to acknowledge that as a valid perspective?

> Cor
>
> --
>  - http://nl.libreoffice.org
>  - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -

- 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