openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roberto Galoppini <roberto.galopp...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Date Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:35:58 GMT
2015-02-02 14:34 GMT+01:00 Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com>:

> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to
> >> compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense.
> >> 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance
> >> risk that can be mitigated with time and expense.
> >> 3)  There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle
> >> path and avoid much of this risk.  The Apache License is one example.
> >> 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned
> >> with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further
> >> into using OpenOffice.
> >> I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us
> >> to say.
> >>
> >
> > The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of
> > the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is
> that
> > we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend.
>
>
> That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking is
> why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at
> all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known for
> compliance risks), which GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users
> avoid?
>


I'd say OpenOffice.org itself.

Roberto



>
> S.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message