openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Louis Suárez-Potts <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Date Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:29:59 GMT

> On 30-01-2015, at 15:36, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:
> Pedro and Jürgen,
> It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons.



> It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO licensing conditions
are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no cost.  Comparative cost-benefit is
much larger than that single factor. AOO site and resources could be more helpful in determining
how to migrate successfully, though.  That's something where we have an opportunity to act
as a contribution to the public interest.


> The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what attracted the
attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF.  I had not known what the actual discussion
was at <>.
The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current version of the page
at <>.  (Another list I need to re-subscribe
to.)  A still unanswered question from the list is about whose voice this statement is made
in.  The footnote says it is not the voice of the ASF.

You seem to be disingenuous here, Dennis :-) Seems evident to me that speaking voice is AOO’s,
not Apache’s. Which raises the question, how much rope does an Apache project have in attitudinal
and tonal if not legal issues? Presumably, from the reaction so far witnessed, when the tone
could affect business operations.
> It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say about other
(open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are honored, where accepted, in ASF
Apache Projects.  The only ASF compliance concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and
the ASF conditions on how the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor
all governing licenses.  That is more appropriately presented in material addressed to ASF
Project developers and potential contributors.  The only advice to adapters of software from
ASF Projects is that it is important to observe the licenses that apply.  And that interested
parties should look elsewhere for legal advice and assurances.

Okay—this is more or less what I hinted at, anyway. Out of curiosity, do we know why Bradley
has taken to finding us so objectionable? I know he finds the ICLA, any CLA, a foul bargain
for the contributor, and that BSD-style licenses reek of sulfur and cloak the corruption of
freedom’s community with false gold. Or something like that. I’m as opposed to neoliberalism
and love a David Graeber-style anarchism as the next hyper-educated guy, but I even more like
practical solutions, i.e., those that work in the world. I also like Bradley, insofar as I
have spoken to him in narrow circumstances, but would be curious if he’s also railed against,
say, Mozilla, or Ubuntu, or any other slightly fallen angel.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Giffuni [] 
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03
> To: OOo Apache
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
> [ ... ]
> I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive
> and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for
> certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read
> licenses anyways :).
> I honestly don't think having a "compliance costs" page will make
> a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such
> things through a legal process, I guess that can't do any harm.
> Regards,
> Pedro.
> [1]
> [2]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message