Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C74B118D00 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 02:55:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 86081 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2015 02:55:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 85934 invoked by uid 500); 7 Aug 2015 02:55:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 85924 invoked by uid 99); 7 Aug 2015 02:55:36 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 02:55:36 +0000 Received: from Astraendo2 (75-165-123-152.tukw.qwest.net [75.165.123.152]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id BFA601A022F for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 02:55:34 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" To: References: <0d8b01d0cfb6$c65b3cd0$5311b670$@rosenlaw.com> <8DDCF798-4621-4854-97EB-05B611098056@apache.org> <0da601d0cfc5$08b7e200$1a27a600$@rosenlaw.com> <00f301d0cfed$471435d0$d53ca170$@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <00f301d0cfed$471435d0$d53ca170$@apache.org> Subject: RE: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 19:55:34 -0700 Organization: Interoperability Architect Message-ID: <002f01d0d0bc$885eaf00$991c0d00$@apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0030_01D0D081.DC030B50" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQGF016Kz7oGuk9HZi0grJ4zaVxNHANly+SIAgaqSDACvl03Wp5UVz9A Content-Language: en-us ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01D0D081.DC030B50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think observations from others working on Apache OpenOffice would be = interesting. =20 =20 I have been thinking about this question some more, myself, despite = thinking it a red herring with respect to issues around ASF policies on = third party licenses. =20 =20 1. People make many statements to justify the appeal of a product or of = accepting such appeals. The city of Munich settling on ODF as a = preferred format, and then choosing LibreOffice as the software they = would be installing strikes me as a case where something about the = particular open-source licensing is near-incidental and probably not = determining, as handy as it might be. =20 2. If I was looking for a more compelling explanation, I would think = that it would be of greater import to officials in Munich that The = Document Foundation is a German organization and there is a significant = core of German and European developers on the project. It also may = appeal to the popular wisdom, in Europe, about FOSS and therefore = [L]GPL. It probably mattered even more that TDF marketed LibreOffice to = the City of Munich as well. I.e., this is all speculative, but some of = it is probably more of a likely story than nits about how open-source = projects manage third-party components. =20 3. I have no idea what anyone had in mind as materially significant = concerning =E2=80=9Cgreater flexibility =E2=80=A6 of consumption of open = source licenses.=E2=80=9D We=E2=80=99d need to know exactly how that has = materialized in fact, rather than in concept.=20 I think this posture is explained more concretely in some LibreOffice = materials. In 2012, LibreOffice was still released under [L]GPL although = rebasing on the Apache OpenOffice ALv2 code base was underway, with = subsequent licensing of their derivative to be under MPL2, as explained = on 2012-05-21 at = https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=3DDevelopment/Re-Basi= ng = &oldid=3D49866. The rationale at = https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=3DDevelopment/Re-Basi= ng = = &oldid=3D49866#Why_go_with_the_MPLv2_.3F is interesting. Here is the = latest version of that history, = https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=3DDevelopment/Re-Basi= ng = &oldid=3D91453. It does suggest that the advantage = of the MPL is the ability to combine with strongly reciprocally-licensed = works, so those dependencies are probably as toxic to Apache OpenOffice = as the MPL derivatives of AOO bits are. =20 4. To see how this works out in deed, not just declaration, I have = installed the latest version of LibreOffice, 5.0.0.5 (x64), for = Microsoft Windows. The =E2=80=9CAbout LibreOffice=E2=80=9D Help menu = display says =E2=80=9CCopyright =C2=A9 2000-2015 LibreOffice = contributors. LibreOffice was based on OpenOffice.org=E2=80=9D and = there is no further copyright notice or =E2=80=9Cbased on=E2=80=9D = information there. The =E2=80=9CLicensing and Legal = information=E2=80=9D Help menu display states =E2=80=9CLibreOffice is = made available subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. = 2.0.=E2=80=9D It also declares =E2=80=9CCopyright =C2=A9 2000, 2015 = LibreOffice contributors. All rights reserved. This product was created = by The Document Foundation, based on OpenOffice.org, which is Copyright = 2000, 2011 Oracle and its affiliates.=E2=80=9D There is no other notice = about copyrights there. If the =E2=80=9CShow License=E2=80=9D link to = the Licensing and Legal Information document is followed, one sees a = list of dependencies on third-party licenses, including support copies = of the GPL, LGPL, ALv2, and some other licenses. =20 There is no mention of Apache OpenOffice in anything reachable from = the UI. There is, however, a NOTICE file in the folder where = LibreOffice 5 is installed. It includes an Apache OpenOffice notice and = related notices about Oracle and IBM copyrights. I have no opinion to offer over the approach that has been taken with = regard to license and IP claims applicable to LibreOffice nor do I think = it matters much to the ASF, despite the odd justification lurking in = = &oldid=3D91453#Will_this_mean_LibreOffice_is_.22powered_by_Apache.22_.3F>= that appears to neglect the significant portion of OpenOffice.org that = constituted works-for-hire of Sun Microsystem and Oracle employees and = is made available via the Oracle grant to the ASF. =20 5. I think there is a bigger issue here. Although there are strong = competitive instincts and grievances among some participants on Apache = OpenOffice and counterparts on LibreOffice, I believe the Apache = Software Foundation will have none of that. It is not how the ASF = expresses its approach to serving the public interest in anything I have = seen. =20 Furthermore, unless the TDF was a willing contributor back to the = Apache OpenOffice project, required for acceptance under another aspect = of ASF good citizenship, I think there is nothing to say about whatever = license and IP provenance there is in the LibreOffice code base. =20 There is certainly nothing to say about how LibreOffice is marketed = and any puffery and other statements that are made in favor of = LibreOffice, including any discounting of OpenOffice as an alternative. =20 - Dennis =20 =20 From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 19:12 To: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: RE: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice =20 I think the issue is moot. =20 The avowed flexibility does not seem to have done anything to mitigate = complaints about usability and compatibility, complaints that likely = would apply equally to Apache OpenOffice in that context. =20 It is not at all clear how the =E2=80=9Cgreater flexibility of = open-source licenses=E2=80=9D is pertinent to end-user requirements for = use of an ODF-compliant software product in a civil administration = environment. It might not be immaterial, but apparently it is very low = on the ladder of what matters the most. I see no relationship between = that and whatever interoperability issues are of great concern in = Munich. =20 =20 - Dennis =20 =20 From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 14:24 To: legal-discuss@apache.org =20 Cc: Lawrence Rosen > Subject: RE: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice =20 > How do you see this article as being related to third-party license = policies? =20 Richard, I'm sorry for the ambiguity. See the highlighted sentence = below. Someone more knowledgeable about Apache OpenOffice should tell us = if that sentence is significant in some way to Apache. /Larry =20 > Interoperation is one of the main difficulties organizations have = previously faced with both OpenOffice and LibreOffice. 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.") But as of = mid-2014, the city has been mulling a switch back to Microsoft, in part = due to user complaints about usability and compatibility. > =20 > http://www.infoworld.com/article/2877222/office-software/ = = libreoffice-44-cleans-up-both-its-ui-and-codebase.html=20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Richard Eckart de Castilho [mailto:rec@apache.org]=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 1:11 PM To: legal-discuss@apache.org ; = Lawrence Rosen > Subject: Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice =20 How do you see this article as being related to third-party license = policies? (I can imagine a couple of ways, but I prefer a few clear = statements to hypothesizing). =20 -- Richard =20 On 05.08.2015, at 21:41, Lawrence Rosen < = lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote: =20 > FYI. I'm sorry to cite "competitive" open source publicity here, but = Third Party License policies matter. /Larry > =20 > Interoperation is one of the main difficulties organizations have = previously faced with both OpenOffice and LibreOffice. 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.") But as of = mid-2014, the city has been mulling a switch back to Microsoft, in part = due to user complaints about usability and compatibility. > =20 > = = http://www.infoworld.com/article/2877222/office-software/libreoffice-44-c= leans-up-both-its-ui-and-codebase.html =20 =20 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: = legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: = legal-discuss-help@apache.org ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01D0D081.DC030B50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I= think observations from others working on Apache OpenOffice would be = interesting.=C2=A0 =

<= o:p> 

I= have been thinking about this question some more, myself, despite = thinking it a red herring with respect to issues around ASF policies on = third party licenses.=C2=A0 =

<= o:p> 

1.  = P= eople make many statements to justify the appeal of a product or of = accepting such appeals.=C2=A0 = The city of Munich settling on ODF as a preferred format, and = then choosing LibreOffice as the software they would be installing = strikes me as a case where something about the particular open-source = licensing is near-incidental and probably not determining, as handy as = it might be.
=C2=A0=C2=A0 =

2.  = I= f I was looking for a more compelling explanation, I would think that it = would be of greater import to officials in Munich that The Document = Foundation is a German organization and there is a significant core of = German and European developers on the project.=C2=A0 It also may appeal to the = popular wisdom, in Europe, about FOSS and therefore [L]GPL.=C2=A0 It probably mattered even more = that TDF marketed LibreOffice to the City of Munich as well. I.e., this = is all speculative, but some of it is probably more of a likely story = than nits about how open-source projects manage third-party = components.
=C2=A0=C2=A0 = =C2=A0<= o:p>

3.  = I= have no idea what anyone had in mind as materially significant = concerning =E2=80=9Cgreater flexibility =E2=80=A6 of consumption of open = source licenses.=E2=80=9D We=E2=80=99d need to know exactly how that has = materialized in fact, rather than in concept.
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0I think this posture = is explained more concretely in some LibreOffice materials. In 2012, = LibreOffice was still released under [L]GPL although rebasing on the = Apache OpenOffice ALv2 code base was underway, with subsequent licensing = of their derivative to be under MPL2, as explained on 2012-05-21 at = https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.p= hp?title=3DDevelopment/Re-Basing&oldid=3D49866.=C2=A0 The rationale at https://wiki.docu= mentfoundation.org/index.php?title=3DDevelopment/Re-Basing&oldid=3D49= 866#Why_go_with_the_MPLv2_.3F is interesting.=C2=A0 Here is the latest version of = that history, https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.p= hp?title=3DDevelopment/Re-Basing&oldid=3D91453.=C2=A0 =C2=A0It does suggest that the = advantage of the MPL is the ability to combine with strongly = reciprocally-licensed works, so those dependencies are probably as toxic = to Apache OpenOffice as the MPL derivatives of AOO bits are.
=C2=A0=C2=A0 <= o:p>

4.  = T= o see how this works out in deed, not just declaration, I have installed = the latest version of LibreOffice, 5.= 0.0.5 (x64), for Microsoft Windows.=C2=A0 The =E2=80=9CAbout = LibreOffice=E2=80=9D Help menu display says =E2=80=9CCopyright =C2=A9 = 2000-2015 LibreOffice contributors.=C2=A0 LibreOffice was based on = OpenOffice.org=E2=80=9D and there is no further copyright notice or = =E2=80=9Cbased on=E2=80=9D information there. =C2=A0The =E2=80=9CLicensing and Legal = information=E2=80=9D Help menu display states =E2=80=9CLibreOffice is = made available subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. = 2.0.=E2=80=9D=C2=A0 It also = declares =E2=80=9CCopyright =C2=A9 2000, 2015 LibreOffice contributors. = All rights reserved. This product was created by The Document = Foundation, based on OpenOffice.org, which is Copyright 2000, 2011 = Oracle and its affiliates.=E2=80=9D=C2=A0 There is no other notice about = copyrights there.=C2=A0 If the = =E2=80=9CShow License=E2=80=9D link to the Licensing and Legal = Information document is followed, one sees a list of dependencies on = third-party licenses, including support copies of the GPL, LGPL, ALv2, = and some other licenses.=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0There is no mention = of Apache OpenOffice in anything reachable from the UI.=C2=A0 There is, however, a NOTICE = file in the folder where LibreOffice 5 is installed.=C2=A0 It includes an Apache = OpenOffice notice and related notices about Oracle and IBM = copyrights.
=C2=A0=C2=A0 I = have no opinion to offer over the approach that has been taken with = regard to license and IP claims applicable to LibreOffice nor do I think = it matters much to the ASF, despite the odd justification lurking in = <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=3DDeve= lopment/Re-Basing&oldid=3D91453#Will_this_mean_LibreOffice_is_.22powe= red_by_Apache.22_.3F> that appears to neglect the significant = portion of OpenOffice.org that constituted works-for-hire of Sun = Microsystem and Oracle employees and is made available via the Oracle = grant to the ASF.
=C2=A0=C2=A0 = <= o:p>

5.  = I= think there is a bigger issue here.=C2=A0 Although there are strong = competitive instincts and grievances among some participants on Apache = OpenOffice and counterparts on LibreOffice, I believe the Apache = Software Foundation will have none of that.=C2=A0 It is not how the ASF expresses = its approach to serving the public interest in anything I have = seen.=C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Furthermore, unless = the TDF was a willing contributor back to the Apache OpenOffice project, = required for acceptance under another aspect of ASF good citizenship, I = think there is nothing to say about whatever license and IP provenance = there is in the LibreOffice code base.=C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0There is certainly = nothing to say about how LibreOffice is marketed and any puffery and = other statements that are made in favor of LibreOffice, including any = discounting of OpenOffice as an alternative.<= o:p>

<= o:p> 

-   = D= ennis

<= o:p> 

<= o:p> 

From: Dennis E. Hamilton = [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 = 19:12
To: = legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: RE: InfoWorld article on = LibreOffice and OpenOffice

 

I= think the issue is moot.

<= o:p> 

T= he avowed flexibility does not seem to have done anything to mitigate = complaints about usability and compatibility, complaints that likely = would apply equally to Apache OpenOffice in that = context.

<= o:p> 

I= t is not at all clear how the =E2=80=9Cgreater flexibility of = open-source licenses=E2=80=9D is pertinent to end-user requirements for = use of an ODF-compliant software product in a civil administration = environment.=C2=A0 It might not = be immaterial, but apparently it is very low on the ladder of what = matters the most.=C2=A0 I see no = relationship between that and whatever interoperability issues are of = great concern in Munich.=C2=A0 =

<= o:p> 

-   = D= ennis

<= o:p> 

<= o:p> 

From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com] =
Sent: Wednesday, = August 5, 2015 14:24
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
= Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: RE: InfoWorld article = on LibreOffice and OpenOffice

 

> How do you see this article as being = related to third-party license policies?

 

Richard, I'm sorry for the ambiguity. See the = highlighted sentence below. Someone more knowledgeable about Apache = OpenOffice should tell us if that sentence is significant in some way to = Apache. /Larry

 

> Interoperation is one of the main = difficulties organizations have previously faced with both OpenOffice = and LibreOffice. 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.") But as of mid-2014, the city has = been mulling a switch back to Microsoft, in part due to user complaints = about usability and compatibility.

> 

> http://www.infoworld.com/= article/2877222/office-software/libreoffice-4= 4-cleans-up-both-its-ui-and-codebase.html =

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard = Eckart de Castilho [mailto:rec@apache.org]
Sent: = Wednesday, August 5, 2015 1:11 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; = Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subjec= t: Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and = OpenOffice

 

How do you see this article as being related = to third-party license policies? (I can imagine a couple of ways, but I = prefer a few clear statements to = hypothesizing).

 

-- Richard

 

On 05.08.2015, at 21:41, Lawrence Rosen = <lrosen@ros= enlaw.com> wrote:

 

> FYI.  I'm sorry to cite = "competitive" open source publicity here, but Third Party = License policies matter.  /Larry

> 

> Interoperation is one of the main = difficulties organizations have previously faced with both OpenOffice = and LibreOffice. 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.") But as of mid-2014, the city has been = mulling a switch back to Microsoft, in part due to user complaints about = usability and compatibility.

> 

> http://www= .infoworld.com/article/2877222/office-software/libreoffice-44-cleans-up-b= oth-its-ui-and-codebase.html

 

 

----------------------------------------------= -----------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-disc= uss-unsubscribe@apache.org

=

For additional commands, = e-mail: legal-disc= uss-help@apache.org

<= /body> ------=_NextPart_000_0030_01D0D081.DC030B50--