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 751D518F4F for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 21:24:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 33963 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2015 21:24:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 33812 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2015 21:24:33 -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 33801 invoked by uid 99); 5 Aug 2015 21:24:32 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 21:24:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 6E1BA1A9856 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 21:24:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.901 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.901 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=rosenlaw.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ETIY7cc980Xh for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 21:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with SMTP id B334520775 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 21:24:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15831 invoked by uid 0); 5 Aug 2015 21:24:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 5 Aug 2015 21:24:09 -0000 Received: from box597.bluehost.com ([66.147.242.197]) by cmgw3 with id 1FQ11r01H4GF2VN01FQ49Q; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 21:24:08 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Qc314Krv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=NRJ8aB/FPT4S3utBguGD+g==:117 a=NRJ8aB/FPT4S3utBguGD+g==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=4F77bVRYAAAA:8 a=FxJxCPAPh0wA:10 a=AqkBdCNi7UMA:10 a=uRRa74qj2VoA:10 a=DAwyPP_o2Byb1YXLmDAA:9 a=W3Fe57fLAAAA:8 a=mV9VRH-2AAAA:8 a=B9NLDBMerg4jydJ-TR4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=vKkKvlSAFbAA:10 a=53mUTW9PLbcA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=yRySPxS0kp-Js4TpLaQA:9 a=0JkT__zlgjO3ms65:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=kd56-y7DDVgA:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rosenlaw.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Reply-To; bh=T++MYSORdNMQM/BqRfGLmwejF3Y707PpIyc3zRx0qU4=; b=jaPP7dFw3CHBPIN70pBltvjqx2oCBzfTZ58adXXZJSt+xc/Tf9chGBdQm8LWTx0ePfgmUYsqQfXUov5MCUMtuXT7dHTCdZTnt0YK9kYZ8j1nKoa2ZYIKzEBe+Lfk4zBc; Received: from [70.36.224.178] (port=29810 helo=LawrenceLenovo) by box597.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZN6AG-0000Va-14; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:23:56 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Lawrence Rosen" To: Cc: "Lawrence Rosen" References: <0d8b01d0cfb6$c65b3cd0$5311b670$@rosenlaw.com> <8DDCF798-4621-4854-97EB-05B611098056@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <8DDCF798-4621-4854-97EB-05B611098056@apache.org> Subject: RE: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:23:52 -0700 Message-ID: <0da601d0cfc5$08b7e200$1a27a600$@rosenlaw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0DA7_01D0CF8A.5C597F30" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQGF016Kz7oGuk9HZi0grJ4zaVxNHANly+SInnizhVA= Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {1397:box597.bluehost.com:rosenla1:rosenlaw.com} {sentby:smtp auth 70.36.224.178 authed with lrosen@rosenlaw.com} ------=_NextPart_000_0DA7_01D0CF8A.5C597F30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 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-44-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 Subject: 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@rosenlaw.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-clea ns-up-both-its-ui-and-codebase.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org ------=_NextPart_000_0DA7_01D0CF8A.5C597F30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> 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-44-cleans-up-bo= th-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>
Subject: 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@rosenlaw.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/artic= le/2877222/office-software/libreoffice-44-cleans-up-both-its-ui-and-codeb= ase.html

 

 

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

To unsubscribe, = e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apac= he.org

For additional = commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org<= /span>

------=_NextPart_000_0DA7_01D0CF8A.5C597F30--