openoffice-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From M Henri Day <mhenri...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Open Office in Swedish
Date Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:14:01 GMT
2012/11/28 Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>

> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM, M Henri Day <mhenriday@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2012/11/28 Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM, M Henri Day <mhenriday@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > 2012/11/28 Hagar Delest <hagar.delest@laposte.net>
> >> >
> >> >> Le 28/11/2012 19:43, M Henri Day a écrit :
> >> >>
> >> >>> Agree - but the responsibility for the forking should be placed
> >> squarely
> >> >>> where it lies - on Oracle. Moreover, the forked paths would have
> >> >>> automatically rejoined had Oracle, when it decided to dump OOo,
> chosen
> >> to
> >> >>> assign it to the Document Foundation, which was already up and
> running
> >> and
> >> >>> which requested that this be done. Instead, the firm decided to
> assign
> >> all
> >> >>> the rights to Apache, in the knowledge that doing so would
> perpetuate
> >> the
> >> >>> fork. Thank you, Mr Ellison....
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> But you're forgetting the license difference!
> >> >> Apache license has been chosen because it allows a more permissive
> reuse
> >> >> of the code. Of course I understand the fears that it can draw but
it
> >> can
> >> >> also attract big players. Even if some code is note given back to the
> >> >> community, they know that if they want to benefit from the support
of
> >> the
> >> >> community, the community need to know about the new code those big
> >> players
> >> >> are injecting too.
> >> >> So let them customize for their own need and help the community with
> >> code
> >> >> that is not strategical for them, with manpower, with ODF support,
> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, Isn't LO investigating a license change (to Al v2, like AOO)?
> What
> >> >> would happen to the already submitted code that is based on OOo code
> and
> >> >> not AOO? The mere thinking about switching is a proof that in the
> end,
> >> the
> >> >> Apache license may be the best way to attract resources.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hagar
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hagar, are the differences between the Apache License version 2 and
> the
> >> GNU
> >> > Lesser General Public License version 3 really so great that they
> >> preclude
> >> > a recombination of the forked paths ? In my view, it should be
> possible
> >> to
> >> > overcome the differences, but the longer things go on in the present
> >> > manner, the greater the risk that both sides will become more and more
> >> > entrenched in their present positions. In any event, my suggestion to
> the
> >> > OP was based upon her evident desire to obtain an updated
> >> Swedish-language
> >> > version of the suite, one of which is offered by LibreOffice, but
> alas,
> >> not
> >> > (yet ?) by Apache OpenOffice....
> >> >
> >>
> >> When LO wanted to change frm LGPL to MPL they simply sent a note to
> >> their developers and asked them to return a statement saying that they
> >> agreed to include MPL license on their past and future contributions.
> >> It was simple and painless.  If they wanted to end the fork a similar
> >> note, asking for agreement to attach the Apache License, would also
> >> work.
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >
> > Presumably, Rob, that would work for Apache as well - or is it a case of
> *quod
> > licet Iovi non licet bovi* ? As we know, it takes two to tango....
> >
>
> As I said, it is symmetrical.  We should avoid the portrayal that one
> side is a viper's den of corporate interests and the other side
> consists of cloistered monks.  There are various interests on both
> projects.
>
> -Rob
>

I am unaware of having portrayed any «side» as being «cloistered monks» -
and besides, having a certain professional acquaintance with East Asian
history, I'm not particularly impressed by the presumed innocence or
other-worldliness of «cloistered monks». Nor did I imply that Apache is «a
viper's den of corporate interests» - although I certainly did question
Oracle' motives. But if you truly believe, Rob, that the situation is
symmetrical, then your suggestion that all that it is necessary to resolve
it is for LO to abandon its license and require of developers that they
accept Apache's license is rather odd....

Henri

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