www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Eckart de Castilho <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice
Date Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:10:30 GMT
On 11.08.2015, at 17:27, 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!

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


Mime
View raw message