incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <>
Subject Re: LibreOffice relicensing efforts
Date Wed, 23 May 2012 19:16:40 GMT
On 05/23/12 11:49, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 10:36 -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> 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.
> 	This is emphatically not our assumption.
>> - They are ignoring the changes done during incubation, claiming
>> they are only 6%, which happens to be critical for licensing purposes.
> 	My analysis suggests that (apart from license header changes, and hdu's
> cleanup of permissions - you know 'chmod -x *cxx') only around one in
> twenty of the files (either all, or C++) have any change at all. Quite
> possibly I got that wrong :-) Perhaps I don't count entirely new files,
> there is some error bar there - but I suspect if you re-do the count,
> you'll discover it is roughly right.
> 	Please notice the 'incremental' nature of the change; ie. doing it file
> by file.

I have little interest in the statistics. As someone that contributed to the
code I am aware there are small but significant changes almost
everywhere. What I am saying here is that the relicensing process
is clearly not an ordered effort to do a clean implementation (starting
from AOO and sorting contributions change by change), just
some license juggling in the hope that Oracle won't complain.

Again, I am not a lawyer and the LO relicensing procedure is still too
unclear to know what is really happening.

> It might also interest you (though sadly now the commit history is 
> comprehensively lost) that some considerable chunk of the code that 
> you have in Apache OpenOffice was created by members of the 
> LibreOffice team over the past decade+; if we all start thanking each 
> other left & right it might go on for quite a long time, to the point 
> of insincerity. All the best, Michael. 

I won't underestimate the contributions of so many developers outside Oracle
but clearly it was always SUN/Oracle the company that made OpenOffice
(and LibreOffice) possible. I recall there is a credit page for 
contributions: if
there is someone missing do let me know and I will gladly see how to add

The world now has Apache OpenOffice, which as you guys now, is enabling
the only possibility you now have of getting rid of the restrictions imposed
by the previous license. While you may have complained a lot about the
value or nuisance of having a JCA, it was essential for OpenOffice in it's
early stages to have clear ownership of the code (who do you think is
supposed to enforce the license?) and only that ownership has made it
possible to relicense most of the code.

Like it not, you owe Oracle your existence and you own the ASF, and this
podling in particular, the possibility of choosing a less restricted 
license. Of
course you seem to have chosen not contribute to our effort and the
license doesn't even force you to say "thank you" but at least some
courtesy is due.


View raw message