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 17:28:23 GMT
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> End-users and other consumers of AOO would lose if we did adjust our policy to allow
ASF project codebases to require, bundle and depend-on non-compliant code.

Please identify any end-user or consumer of AOO who would lose if that software included MPLv2
components.  It is much easier to identify consumers who would be helped by having -- from
Apache -- the best aggregate Open Office in existence that includes valuable MPLv2 components
from LO. Why can't an Apache project do that?

Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Consumption of MPL code is ok if it is included in binary form (read "as a library")
and for small portions of unmodified source [1].

I agree in principle. Aggregating and distributing software as binary libraries (i.e., as
independent code objects that perform specific functions, "modules") is very good practice.
 But the people on legal-discuss@ (including me) are not the technical people who would decide
which "small portions" are appropriate. The AOO PMC is. We should encourage them to do so.

The only still incompatible part of your statement above is the current Apache policy requirement
that it be "in binary form." That isn't MPLv2.  That isn't FOSS!  That isn't Apache!  Publish
the source and I'm happy.  Stop distinguishing binary from source; it is the *same* copyrighted
work.

And I promise Jim that most AOO consumers won't care that we change that policy.

Marvin Humphrey's email (also copied below) commented:
>> It's hilarious when copyleft licensing gets credit for the 
>> flexibility of permissive licensing.

License distinctions matter to the authors of works who set licensing conditions for derivative
works. You are an author (e.g., Apache contributor) and you choose ALv2. As a fellow Apache
member, I think that is wonderful. Others choose otherwise. There is nothing hilarious about
authors who choose a different FOSS license for their works. As long as it is FOSS (both reciprocal
*and* permissive licensing), everyone is free to use, aggregate, create derivative works and
distribute.  :-)

It is sad when individual developers believe that these license distinctions matter to most
consumers of FOSS. The same Apache members who contribute to Apache under ALv2 also use Linux
(GPLv2) and Firefox (MPLv2) on their same computers. In the case of Open Office, consumers
can have their way with documents and spreadsheets and just be grateful that it is FOSS. 

/Larry

P.S. Welcome back from vacation, Jim. It is nice to have you participating here again.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:51 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Cc: orcmid@apache.org
Subject: Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice


> On Aug 11, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.


End-users and other consumers of AOO would lose if we did adjust our policy to allow ASF project
codebases to require, bundle and depend-on non-compliant code.

Again, this is not what is ALLOWED but rather what we, as an organization, has set down as
a policy.

Here is an analogy: When the stop-light turns from Red to Green, I am legally allowed to step
on the gas and go thru. If someone runs the Red (on their side) and hits me, then legally
I am protected (it's not my fault), but it is still something I wish to prevent. So my POLICY
is, when the light turns Green, to wait a second or 2, look both ways, and *then* step on
the gas.

I will also state that the IT eco-system, at large, is benefited when there are permissive
versions of code in addition to copy- left versions, and that our policy encourages the creation
of such ALv2 alternatives.

Cheers!

> 
> /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
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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