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 19:14:28 GMT
> The *real* problem for companies like these is that we have created two
> separate FOSS communities (AOO and LO) writing code when Apache Software
> Foundation could help solve this code aggregation problem for all of us.
> Luis Suárez-Potts already wrote eloquently on this list about the challenges
> we face.
> 

No, we have not.

We have inherited the AOO community, long after the LO community forked
off. The reason for accepting the donation was to allow AOO to become
the inner core, the foundation, of an open office suite, licensed under
the ALv2, which could then be used by LO and others (FOSS implementations
such as NeoOffice, et.al., as well as commercial offerings) as the framework
on which they could add their bits to create their own specialized 'product'.

We see that, in many ways, this has happened, but not in the way we
hoped; Instead of building *on* AOO, LO simply *consumed* AOO, and
specifically made it clear to any and all parties who depended on
and developed for LO that they were NOT allowed to have their code
donations/patches/fixes/ etc under ANY license that AOO could then
consume back. One expects this kind of behavior from commercial,
corporate consumers but the extent to which this was drilled into
the LO community, a supposedly pro-FOSS community, was kind of
special and shocking.

The goal was clear: plunder AOO for all it is worth, give nothing
back, and work for its destruction.

> I personally believe that under a revitalized "Apache Way" the Apache
> Software Foundation can provide an excellent home for creative and accepting
> FOSS communities and for great software. License passion stands in the way. 
> 

We have a fantastic and noteworthy record and reputation. I, for one,
am proud of it. Nor do I think that our Apache Way needs any
revitalization, at least as far as license compatibility.

AOO is a unique and special case; I can't see totally reworking a
licensing policy that we have had for 20 years, one that is known
and respected throughout the community (as evidenced by the universal
acceptance and usage of ASF code through the IT eco-system and elsewhere),
and one that has allowed the Open Source movement to truly prosper and
thrive, to handle this special one-off case, nor does it seem to
really, honestly *require* any changes.

All it takes are the AOO and LO communities to act like adults and
*work* together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message