Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of nthiebaud@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1319250376.89739.YahooMailClassic@web113517.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CAP-ksohhZQZ2_Go7A2o43BK=qcxePemUFzUfRMEui4cWsO=PWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1319250376.89739.YahooMailClassic@web113517.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:19:31 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAFWMYEHsitos1UbS=vxcWKZc5evnTVhHReC+eoYP615gRKE7Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
From: Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, pfg@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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.

>
> 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