openoffice-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Open Office in Swedish
Date Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:29:31 GMT
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM, M Henri Day <> wrote:
> 2012/11/28 Hagar Delest <>
>> 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


> Henri

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message