www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice
Date Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:51:14 GMT

> 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


Mime
View raw message