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: LibreOffice relicensing efforts
Date Thu, 24 May 2012 02:51:28 GMT
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:20 AM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 23:13 +0900, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>> Hi Louis,
>>
>> We can start sharing codes.
>
> That is not really what it says, nor what it means IMO.
>
> With regard to the MPL specifically, I asked during a session on
> licensing at the recent Apache Barcamp the question of mixing MPL within
> an Apache project, it was clear from the response that this is not a
> reasonable expectation.
>

Right.  MPL is category-b.   We can consume category-b code in binary
form only.

But I think much of this discussion fails to note the real force at
play in determining the direction of code contributions.  It is not
the license.   All the talk about ALv2 versus LGPL/MPL signifying that
"LO can take all the code from Apache they want, but Apache can take
nothing form LO" is missing the forest for the trees.  The real force
that will determine future actions is the cost of merging.

There is very little code of value in AOO that can simply be copied
as-is into LO and then never touched again.   Typically the code will
need to be modified when initially merged into LO.  But then, as bugs
are fixed or the feature is enhanced in AOO, LO will want to merge
these patches in again.  And what if then LO has its own unique bug
fixes or enhancements to the feature taken from AOO?   Greater merge
complexity, maintenance of separate change sets, etc.

The cost of such merges, in terms of developer effort, is significant,
as well as being error prone.   For any non-trivial feature it is
usually far simpler, and cheaper to "push the patch upstream".  In
other words, for LO to contribute their patches to AOO under the ALv2.
 If they do that, and their patches are accepted into AOO, then they
reduce their merge expense.    If they don't do that, they quickly get
involved in a costly merge hell.

-Rob


> //drew
>
>> I like it.
>> :)
>> Thanks,
>> khirano
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > See below
>> >
>> > (Nonsense words? iPad's spellchecker.)
>> >
>> > -- Louis Suárez-Potts
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2012-05-23, at 9:55, Kazunari Hirano <khirano@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Shane,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the links.
>> >> It's good.  I like it.
>> >
>> > What do you like?
>> >
>> >> :)
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> khirano
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org>
wrote:
>> >>> In case folks haven't seen this:
>> >>>
>> >>>  http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>> >>>
>> >>> Which points to:
>> >>>
>> >>>  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing
>> >>>
>> >>> So it looks like there will be plenty of code sharing! 8->
>> >>>
>> >>> - Shane
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> khirano@apache.org
>> >> Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
>> >> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message