incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
Date Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:03:18 GMT


--- On Tue, 10/25/11, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > LO had no choice but to take LGPL.  So more
> > necessity/inertia than
> > ethos.  And -- according to Michael -- when it
> > thought that MPL might be more acceptable TDF was
> > quick to add MPL for new code
> > contributions.  This shows an ethos of flexibility.
> 
> And look how well it has served us. Despite that very
> large concession, IBM still snubbed it and 9 month
> later started a new fork.
> You give a hand, it want the whole body...
> 
I will ignore for now the paranoia/plot theory, to
note two issues:

1) Its so easy to criticize IBM while ignoring the
corporate interests that acelerated the original
and only real fork. A fork that ended up costing
the jobs of many good guys. If for you considering
the MPL was a very large concession, for Oracle,
which actually owns the code, making all the code
AL2 is much bigger concession.

2) I can still read on the Go-OO site the desire
to have the OpenOffice.org code owned by a meritocracy
like the Apache Foundation:

http://go-oo.org/ (Freer Licensing section)

Cheers,

Pedro.




> > This is a good thing.
> Only in others right ? Do as I say not as I do...
> 
> [ snip trolling ]
> >
> >> disingenuous and divisive to assume any community
> will drop its governance
> >> approach like this, Pedro. It translates as "the
> path to collaboration is
> >> your surrender; we can negotiate once you've done
> that".  You make it sound
> >
> > This is obviously a touchy subject for you, Simon.
>  But please read
> > what Pedro wrote.  He said:
> >
> > "If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2 for
> stuff in the
> > core package, that would be a huge  advance to get a
> bit nearer both
> > camps."
> >
> > This is not asking for LO members to surrender or fall
> on their
> > swords.
> 
> As a TDF member, I'm telling you: Yes it is _exactly_ what
> it sound like.
> 
> > It is suggesting that information be made available
> to LO
> > developers who might wish to voluntarily make their
> code available
> > under ALv2 as well as the existing LGPL/MPL.   Please
> correct me if
> > I'm wrong, but I had the impression that nothing at
> TDF/LO that would
> > prevent someone from doing this?
> 
> It is one thing to not 'prevent' someone from abandoning
> free-software
> principles (as if anyone had such power anyway)
> It is quite another to have "libreoffice [more exactly TDF]
> ask its
> members" or contributors to do so
> 
> Norbert
> 

Mime
View raw message