www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice
Date Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:18:50 GMT
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Richard Eckart de Castilho <rec@apache.org>
wrote:

> On 11.08.2015, at 17:27, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> <javascript:;>> 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!
>
> 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].
>
> If we allowed to integrate patches under MPL, we could just as well put
> the whole project accepting these patches under MPL -because managing
> multiple licenses within a single source file is not practicable and having
> a large number of foreign-licensed files makes refactoring impracticable.
>
> ... and at that point it would not be an Apache project anymore as Apache
> projects are under the Apache License. That's more than just the policy,
> that's the identity of the ASF, and that's what we all subscribe to.
>
> If I wanted to run a project under a different license, I'll go elsewhere
> to do so, not to the ASF.
>
> I can hardly imagine the implications and chances of running a project at
> Apache while almost the same project is being run with a larger community
> and undoubtedly a more relaxed licensing policy elsewhere were not clear to
> those who embarked on that path.
>
> Such stories can also work out differently. Consider Jenkins and Hudson.
> In my world, I see Jenkins (ASL)


Correction, MIT

But that is still very close to ASL


> as the "winner" with the more active community and Hudson (EPL) as the
> "looser". Surely, Jenkins doesn't accept contributions under EPL [2] but I
> never heard anybody complain about that because (or I didn't put me ear to
> the right places).
>
> So if the community had flocked to AOO, would anybody complain?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [2]
> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Document#GovernanceDocument-3rdpartylibrarylicensesinthecore
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my phone

Mime
View raw message