incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: LibreOffice relicensing efforts
Date Wed, 23 May 2012 15:36:12 GMT
FWIW,

And with the traditional IANAL disclaimer:

On 05/23/12 08:43, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> In case folks haven't seen this:
>
>   http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>
> Which points to:
>
>   http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing
>
>

There are no details of the relicensing process but doesn't look
very clean to me:
- They are basically assuming that OOo 3.3.x (where they started
has been relicensed under ALv2, which is not true.
- They are ignoring the changes done during incubation, claiming
they are only 6%, which happens to be critical for licensing purposes.

Perhaps the worst of it is that without a clear process they will make
things look as if *we* had relicensed some stuff that is not under our
control.

If they are basically counting files and switching headers then I guess
that simplistic view will leave a lot of holes as a lot of code changed from
the time they forked. An example, just to show it's not FUD: Apache
OpenOffice doesn't support webdav through Neon: support for
Neon was not relicensed so the either take our changes to use serf
or they should drop completely that code.

To be absolutely clean, they should import AOO 3.4 into the git and start
bringing their changes. That would likely take a lot of time but .. hey...
what do you think we were doing during incubation? ;-).

The other thing is that it doesn't look like they want to build community:
when you take someone else's code you should at least say thank you.
And they do own a lot of beers to Oracle and to this project.

Pedro.


Mime
View raw message