Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of roberto.galoppini@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4ffp-V=Wtg0rqw+ucVUrWpV_4x10Biwen2W_-W9w879PCVYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54CBB951.8070907@apache.org>
	<006201d03ccc$68262670$38727350$@apache.org>
	<CAP-ksoisxmvZUr2y9KhQofP7Y7-y0xqH=wQzAo4HT1daPZ-tYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54CECE72.3020404@apache.org>
	<CAA4ffp-V=Wtg0rqw+ucVUrWpV_4x10Biwen2W_-W9w879PCVYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 12:35:58 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAGNcyf9fLXsp8j0MKUDYdZ=UOaHyQGCmz4VcYfAKEr-ixAr9Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
From: Roberto Galoppini <roberto.galoppini@gmail.com>
To: dev <dev@openoffice.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c16f0880cfeb050e2d7929

--001a11c16f0880cfeb050e2d7929
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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.
>

--001a11c16f0880cfeb050e2d7929--