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 20:39:13 GMT
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....

Henri

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