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 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:33:44 GMT
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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...
>

TDF was never able to deliver on MPL.   Having MPL on just new
contributions is nearly worthless.  The new code in LO is just the
fuzz on the peach.  The vast majority of the code in LO is still LGPL.
 But now that Oracle has put the core code under Apache 2.0 via their
SGA, you now have the opportunity to have a consistent licensing
policy that would be conducive to collaboration.


>> 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.
>

to quote Michael Meeks:

"The problem lies not with the license, but the idea that a single
company, with it's own agenda, having set itself up as the sole owner
of an open source project, will then always act in that project's best
interest. That just seems unrealistic, and the bigger the company -
IMHO - the less likely it is. Now - a meritocratically constituted
foundation, to which all code / translation etc. contributors
belonged, with some truly representative governance - I'd love to
belong to something like that & assign my rights to it."

Of course, now that that company running the project is his own
company, Michael has become dogmatic about license rather that his
previous dogmatism about  governance.  Plus ça change...

See:  http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2007-10-03.html

>> 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
>

is collaboration against free software principles?

> Norbert
>

Mime
View raw message