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 04:33:36 GMT
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 10/25/11, Norbert Thiebaud <> 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 code owned by a meritocracy
> like the Apache Foundation:
> (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 ?


View raw message