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 Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:40:07 GMT
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>I merged some fixes from bugzilla
>>that may be shared, and they have taken a lot of code that
>>they tagged as "contributed" by Oracle.
>
> Are you sure about that? please read the CLA which many of the said
> bugzilla patches are covered with :
>
> "1. Contributor owns, and has sufficient rights to contribute, all
> source code and related material intended to be compiled or integrated
> with the source code for the OpenOffice.org open source product (the
> "Contribution") which Contributor has ever delivered, and Sun has
> accepted, for incorporation into the technology made available under
> the OpenOffice.org open source project."
>
> Are you sure that all the pieces you are scrubbing from bugzilla meet
> the 'and Sun has accepted, for incorporation into the technology made
> available under the OpenOffice.org open source project" requirement ?
> Seems to me that if they are still lingering in bugzilla, surely they
> have not been 'accepted' by SUN yet... So you are essentially merging
> some LGPLv3 patches, with no clear legal path to AL2.
>

Since Sun had control of the Bugzilla instance, then anything you (a
non-Sun member of the public) can see was "accepted" and "made
available under the OpenOffice.org open source project".   You see a
similar use of the word "accept" in the Terms of Use of the website.

>>
>> The problem is not really integrating the codebases but the
>> fact that the ownership of LO is so disperse and that TDF
>> is incapable of taking any relicensing decision.
>
> This is not a problem, this is a feature. Copy-left + decentralized
> ownership is a very effective way to protect 'Free' software... free
> as in freedom aka 'Libre'. Linux is a prime example of that.
>
> But if you want to pin-point a problem. that _IS_ the attempt of some
> corporate interest to force a unilateral re-licensing of the project,
> and then claim that 'convergence' is desirable.
> If convergence was desirable, then one obvious solution would have to
> continue contributing according to the license of the project.
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel
> <martin.hollmichel@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> * A call to LibreOffice contributors also to contribute their changes to
>> Apache as the ASF is the long desired independent foundation for
>> OpenOffice.org.
> The long desired independent foundation _is_ TDF. By the time Oracle
> did its IBM-approved tantrum, TDF had already few releases
> out-the-door...
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It just seems that there are too many individual interests
>> outweighing such a goal at present.
>>
> Apache OOo fork is born out of 'corporate' interest not 'individual'
> interests. Hence the fatal license road block.
>
> Norbert
>

Mime
View raw message