incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Thiebaud <>
Subject Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
Date Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:20:02 GMT
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Given licenses are the expression of the ethos of a community, it's
> 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...

> 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


View raw message