From users-return-3408-apmail-openoffice-users-archive=openoffice.apache.org@openoffice.apache.org Wed Nov 28 21:15:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-openoffice-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B0A20D13B for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:15:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 50773 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2012 21:15:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-users-archive@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 50725 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2012 21:15:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@openoffice.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 50712 invoked by uid 99); 28 Nov 2012 21:15:09 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:15:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mhenriday@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.174 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.174] (HELO mail-ea0-f174.google.com) (209.85.215.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:15:04 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f174.google.com with SMTP id e13so6365446eaa.33 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:14:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=tD3oJIqEFpu1Y1gRa6Y5R7TAZHEW3t1lRC9IfKkCxHQ=; b=JNI102b2rO62U+rOK7z8hd3WvTdfoZZeBnTpnnyHLQVt1MF0xKf/qkHNiN/m07SAuu +CwYOgB6n4PqOlzAx6bB8QH1xMaXHIOzPZwVhYwk/zag+HgP6YBB5dhsdfQ9GKeTnr52 8YwLN4mAyg8qSeoiCuGAtf48PWvmug7ORUNSTaR7a0cdA+0xQLy9Idamx9EAN2kKCahH EvGa7b6ALHkcOFdjqhZXMXvi1hM1OsLKz9t7SCviYVeUHVPbeYK9o+SQuc3jBjXxrOd8 tFii7xpL/njGUQwSl31lHodZTdlYL2fHQ8zIjqQN0B/1EKc+6allI1E4+MbXdqnlrtv8 Q3eg== Received: by 10.14.211.135 with SMTP id w7mr74150839eeo.4.1354137283060; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:14:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.204.193 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:14:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121128183641.270BF816018@nike.apache.org> <50B66AC2.7090404@laposte.net> From: M Henri Day Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:14:01 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Open Office in Swedish To: users@openoffice.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b624940bbe1b304cf94a7ea X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b624940bbe1b304cf94a7ea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2012/11/28 Rob Weir > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM, M Henri Day wrote: > > 2012/11/28 Rob Weir > > > >> 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 =C3=A9crit : > >> >> > >> >>> 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 t= he > >> >> 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 wit= h > >> 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 cod= e > 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 mo= re > >> > entrenched in their present positions. In any event, my suggestion t= o > 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 o= f > *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 =C2=ABside=C2=BB as being =C2=ABcloist= ered monks=C2=BB - and besides, having a certain professional acquaintance with East Asian history, I'm not particularly impressed by the presumed innocence or other-worldliness of =C2=ABcloistered monks=C2=BB. Nor did I imply that Apa= che is =C2=ABa viper's den of corporate interests=C2=BB - although I certainly did questio= n 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 --047d7b624940bbe1b304cf94a7ea--