incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
Date Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:41:34 GMT
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> 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.  This is a good
thing.  One option TDF/LO did not have at the time was  to take the
core OOo code under ALv2, an option they now have via the Oracle SGA's
to Apache.  It might make sense to evaluate the new possibilities,
including possibilities for collaboration, enabled by this change, a
change that was not even remotely foreseeable, and therefore was not
considered, when TDF/LO first started.

> 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.  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?

> so innocent, too, by missing out the other requirement that Apache would
> have for contributors to sign an ICLA and thus join Apache :-)
>

Signing the iCLA is not required for most patches.

Regards,

-Rob

> S.
>

Mime
View raw message