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 05:16:28 GMT
We could argue like this forever I am sure :-P.

Hmm... about 10 years ago I wrote an article
about the evilness of the GPL. I guess I
should rescue it and upload it again just
for didactical purposes.

For me the meritocratic foundation and the
free software license are both in the Apache
Foundation and I certainly wouldnt settle for
less.

Pedro.

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

> From: Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, pfg@apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 11:33 PM
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:03 PM,
> Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- 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:
> 
> And yet the very page you quote also says:
> "While in general we think LGPLv3 is a great &
> sufficient license for
> our code, others eg. Sun & IBM appear reluctant to
> include LGPL code
> into their products, "
> so much for paranoia/plot theory...
> 
> >
> > 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.
> It is very flattering of you to assign such power to TDF,
> but the
> reality is that OpenOffice did not fit in Oracle Business
> model
> Oracle would have closed the OOo shop with or without
> LibreOffice.
> Look at the rest of the Open Source porfolio Oracle
> 'inherited' from
> SUN... and how well things have gone...
> 
> 
> > 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.
> How is that? The only concession I see is one to IBM,
> probably a
> contractual one. making all the code AL2 does not 'concede'
> anything
> more. It is just yet another Hudson/Jenkins tantrum: If I
> can't make
> 70+% margin with the toy, at least I'll try to break it as
> much as I
> can before leaving the playground....
> 
> >
> > 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)
> 
> And we ended-up with the best of both world: a meritocratic
> foundation
> _and_ a free software license.
> why on earth would you imagine that after having
> successfully done
> that, we'd want to settle for less ?
> 
> Norbert
> 

Mime
View raw message