incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Thiebaud <nthieb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Working on a project roadmap ...
Date Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:22:26 GMT
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Would you be willing to put this to a vote of the TDF membership:
> Shall LO contributors be permitted, based on their individual,
> personal choice, to make their contributions to TDF/LO be available
> under the Apache 2.0 license, in addition to the required LGPL/MPL
> licenses?

No need for a vote. No-one can force/forbid individual volunteer to do
what they want. so a 'vote' to declare a 'people shall be permitted'
is a weasel-words non-sens.
And that is _not_ what Pedro suggested. he suggested that the TDF
board 'encouraged' people to contribute to your project.

>
> I'm talking individual choice.  There is nothing today that prevents
> an Apache contributor from taking their contributions and making them
> to LO as well, under LPGL.  Nothing.   I'm just trying to see if
> TDF/LO has similar flexibility.  Bringing up the fact that Apache is
> an well-established 11 year old foundation is nice, but evades the
> main question

The main question being founded on a Non Sequitur, it is quite hard
not to evade it.

>
>>        However, from my perspective, allowing a minority contributor: IBM to
>> choose ASF, and thus try to dictate this slew of set-in-stone
>> pre-decisions to the wider community is highly antisocial. That
>> effectively robs us by dilution and inertia of any real choice in most
>> of these matters forever. This to me is the primary annoyance here, not
>> licensing per-se which is only a symptom.
>>
>
> This is not IBM.
Yes it is. The whole thing is about IBM and only IBM. It has been ever
since SUN changed it's license away from SISSL to LGPL.

>
> Indeed Apache contributors are free to send their patches to LO, under
> any license they chose.  We don't discourage this.
Really ?. Does that hold true for IBM employee ? or only for
contributor over which you have no actual coercive power ?
Does IBM 'encourage' its employee to submit patches under the
appropriate license to LO ?

>
>
>>        It is of course a minority's right, and apparently ASF's choice to
>> support such actions - but they are emphatically anti-meritocratic when
>> you look at the bigger picture. To have (well meaning) people (who have
>> contributed even less than Rob) imposing one company's choice of
>> set-in-stone pre-decisions on the project, day after day would be fairly
>> horrendous.
>>
>
> "imposing choice"?  Really?  One can impose a decision, surely.  But
> no one is talking about that.
We are not talinkg about that indeed.Tthere was no 'talking' about it
at all: this was presented as a fait-accompli by IBM
>
> So giving choice is a threat to the LO community
>  I know that offeing
> choice was a threat to the Soviet Union.

*plonk

Mime
View raw message