www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice
Date Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:27:42 GMT
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> There is a lot of FUD out there focused and directed towards AOO and the ASF regarding
licensing as it relates to LO.
...and...
> What is strange, of course, is that they conveniently forget that LO's widespread and
rampant consumption of AOO code and patches is proof that what they are saying is total BS.d


I agree with Jim that there is a lot of FUD out there. We bring some of it on ourselves.

Of course what is strange, Jim, is that AOO refuses for FUD reasons to accept the widespread
(and rampant) consumption of MPL LO code into AOO, which FOSS rules allow!

Users of AOO lose.

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:51 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: orcmid@apache.org
Subject: Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice


> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:29 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> It is not at all clear how the “greater flexibility of open-source licenses”
>> is pertinent to end-user requirements for use of an ODF-compliant 
>> software product in a civil administration environment.
> 
> From the article:
> 
>  During Munich's multiyear migration from proprietary software (read:
>  Microsoft), the city's administration decided to go with LibreOffice 
> over  OpenOffice back in 2012. (One cited reason was "the greater 
> flexibility of  the project regarding consumption of open source 
> licenses.")
> 
> It's hilarious when copyleft licensing gets credit for the flexibility 
> of permissive licensing.
> 

There is a lot of FUD out there focused and directed towards AOO and the ASF regarding licensing
as it relates to LO. Mostly this is to influence people (and corps) that contributing to LO
is good and safe and more in keeping w/ the ideals of open source than it would be in contributing
to AOO. A lot of this FUD comes from people who should Know Better and who have had it against
the ASF since we accepted AOO under our wing and claim that that action has somehow shown
us to be more religiously strict than the FSF!

What is strange, of course, is that they conveniently forget that LO's widespread and rampant
consumption of AOO code and patches is proof that what they are saying is total BS.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message