Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <1319306595.1868.YahooMailClassic@web113508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
Reply-To: pfg@apache.org
Subject: Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFWMYEHsitos1UbS=vxcWKZc5evnTVhHReC+eoYP615gRKE7Pg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


--- On Sat, 10/22/11, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:26 PM,
> Pedro Giffuni 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 :
> 
I am pretty sure we are safe.

- I was careful not to introduce any new file. When Oracle
changes the headers themselves we get all the code.
- it is my understanding that Oracle will also be making
legal provisions about the bugzilla database. They provided
the dump, its not like we stole anything.

> 
> >
> > 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. 

It is a limitation. Only the copyright owner can make
effective license claims so if the time comes to
enforce the LGPL you will find the surprise of owning
less than 10% the code doesn't help much.

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.
> 

Well I use FreeBSD and I am very glad to have helped Apple
overthrow Microsoft. I would also like to see abundant
commercial forks of Apache OpenOffice, producing new jobs,
and offering new features. Its freedom without strings.

> 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.
> 

The code is owned by Oracle, they paid for it, not by
Novell or Redhat. Quite honestly I think some groups
out there underestimate the resources SUN/Oracle put
into OpenOffice.

Pedro.


> 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
>