openoffice-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Open Office in Swedish
Date Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:02:30 GMT
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


> Henri

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message