Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Reply-To: <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
To: <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Cc: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
References: <0d8b01d0cfb6$c65b3cd0$5311b670$@rosenlaw.com>
 <8DDCF798-4621-4854-97EB-05B611098056@apache.org>
 <0da601d0cfc5$08b7e200$1a27a600$@rosenlaw.com>
 <00f301d0cfed$471435d0$d53ca170$@apache.org>
 <CAAS6=7h7Rrv+e5qUtic9jb0AXuLmdwgB6f9SCxrTHEm9_trY_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <15146C02-4FB3-4BD5-94E4-0EBC4CEB93AA@jaguNET.com>
 <122601d0d44a$459845a0$d0c8d0e0$@rosenlaw.com>
 <8166336D-B646-4713-AB44-AF2C86950599@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <8166336D-B646-4713-AB44-AF2C86950599@jaguNET.com>
Subject: RE: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:28:23 -0700
Message-ID: <126301d0d45b$217a25b0$646e7110$@rosenlaw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: 
 AQGF016Kz7oGuk9HZi0grJ4zaVxNHANly+SIAgaqSDACvl03WgJKtnvpAvyn9asCUYUAYgKefS1OngnruxA=
Content-Language: en-us

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> End-users and other consumers of AOO would lose if we did adjust our =
policy to allow ASF project codebases to require, bundle and depend-on =
non-compliant code.

Please identify any end-user or consumer of AOO who would lose if that =
software included MPLv2 components.  It is much easier to identify =
consumers who would be helped by having -- from Apache -- the best =
aggregate Open Office in existence that includes valuable MPLv2 =
components from LO. Why can't an Apache project do that?

Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> 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].

I agree in principle. Aggregating and distributing software as binary =
libraries (i.e., as independent code objects that perform specific =
functions, "modules") is very good practice.  But the people on =
legal-discuss@ (including me) are not the technical people who would =
decide which "small portions" are appropriate. The AOO PMC is. We should =
encourage them to do so.

The only still incompatible part of your statement above is the current =
Apache policy requirement that it be "in binary form." That isn't MPLv2. =
 That isn't FOSS!  That isn't Apache!  Publish the source and I'm happy. =
 Stop distinguishing binary from source; it is the *same* copyrighted =
work.

And I promise Jim that most AOO consumers won't care that we change that =
policy.

Marvin Humphrey's email (also copied below) commented:
>> It's hilarious when copyleft licensing gets credit for the=20
>> flexibility of permissive licensing.

License distinctions matter to the authors of works who set licensing =
conditions for derivative works. You are an author (e.g., Apache =
contributor) and you choose ALv2. As a fellow Apache member, I think =
that is wonderful. Others choose otherwise. There is nothing hilarious =
about authors who choose a different FOSS license for their works. As =
long as it is FOSS (both reciprocal *and* permissive licensing), =
everyone is free to use, aggregate, create derivative works and =
distribute.  :-)

It is sad when individual developers believe that these license =
distinctions matter to most consumers of FOSS. The same Apache members =
who contribute to Apache under ALv2 also use Linux (GPLv2) and Firefox =
(MPLv2) on their same computers. In the case of Open Office, consumers =
can have their way with documents and spreadsheets and just be grateful =
that it is FOSS.=20

/Larry

P.S. Welcome back from vacation, Jim. It is nice to have you =
participating here again.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:51 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Cc: orcmid@apache.org
Subject: Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice


> On Aug 11, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> 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=20
>> LO's widespread and rampant consumption of AOO code and patches is=20
>> proof that what they are saying is total BS.d
>=20
>=20
> I agree with Jim that there is a lot of FUD out there. We bring some =
of it on ourselves.
>=20
> 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!
>=20
> Users of AOO lose.


End-users and other consumers of AOO would lose if we did adjust our =
policy to allow ASF project codebases to require, bundle and depend-on =
non-compliant code.

Again, this is not what is ALLOWED but rather what we, as an =
organization, has set down as a policy.

Here is an analogy: When the stop-light turns from Red to Green, I am =
legally allowed to step on the gas and go thru. If someone runs the Red =
(on their side) and hits me, then legally I am protected (it's not my =
fault), but it is still something I wish to prevent. So my POLICY is, =
when the light turns Green, to wait a second or 2, look both ways, and =
*then* step on the gas.

I will also state that the IT eco-system, at large, is benefited when =
there are permissive versions of code in addition to copy- left =
versions, and that our policy encourages the creation of such ALv2 =
alternatives.

Cheers!

>=20
> /Larry
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:51 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: orcmid@apache.org
> Subject: Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice
>=20
>=20
>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:29 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton =
<orcmid@apache.org> wrote:
>>=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=20
>>> software product in a civil administration environment.
>>=20
>> From the article:
>>=20
>> During Munich's multiyear migration from proprietary software (read:
>> Microsoft), the city's administration decided to go with LibreOffice=20
>> over  OpenOffice back in 2012. (One cited reason was "the greater=20
>> flexibility of  the project regarding consumption of open source
>> licenses.")
>>=20
>> It's hilarious when copyleft licensing gets credit for the=20
>> flexibility of permissive licensing.
>>=20
>=20
> There is a lot of FUD out there focused and directed towards AOO and =
the ASF regarding licensing as it relates to LO. Mostly this is to =
influence people (and corps) that contributing to LO is good and safe =
and more in keeping w/ the ideals of open source than it would be in =
contributing to AOO. A lot of this FUD comes from people who should Know =
Better and who have had it against the ASF since we accepted AOO under =
our wing and claim that that action has somehow shown us to be more =
religiously strict than the FSF!
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>=20


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


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