Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D307AAC5-72C5-47BE-B57E-ECFF6E022EC8@apache.org>
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>
	<D307AAC5-72C5-47BE-B57E-ECFF6E022EC8@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:18:50 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CA+nPnMxYQEkXoqddkOZdeXTFigwKAptwyvthNgKVeDhU1-yACw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: InfoWorld article on LibreOffice and OpenOffice
From: Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>,
 "orcmid@apache.org" <orcmid@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149425e9f4ca1051d107cae

--089e0149425e9f4ca1051d107cae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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

--089e0149425e9f4ca1051d107cae
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Richard Eckart de Castilho &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:rec@apache.org">rec@apache.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex">On 11.08.2015, at 17:27, Lawrence Rosen &lt;<a href=3D"java=
script:;" onclick=3D"_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;lrosen@rosenlaw.com&#39=
;)">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; Jim Jagielski wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; There is a lot of FUD out there focused and directed towards AOO a=
nd the ASF regarding licensing as it relates to LO.<br>
&gt; ...and...<br>
&gt;&gt; What is strange, of course, is that they conveniently forget that =
LO&#39;s widespread and rampant consumption of AOO code and patches is proo=
f that what they are saying is total BS.d<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I agree with Jim that there is a lot of FUD out there. We bring some o=
f it on ourselves.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 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, w=
hich FOSS rules allow!<br>
<br>
Consumption of MPL code is ok if it is included in binary form (read &quot;=
as a library&quot;) and for small portions of unmodified source [1].<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
... and at that point it would not be an Apache project anymore as Apache p=
rojects are under the Apache License. That&#39;s more than just the policy,=
 that&#39;s the identity of the ASF, and that&#39;s what we all subscribe t=
o.<br>
<br>
If I wanted to run a project under a different license, I&#39;ll go elsewhe=
re to do so, not to the ASF.<br>
<br>
I can hardly imagine the implications and chances of running a project at A=
pache while almost the same project is being run with a larger community an=
d undoubtedly a more relaxed licensing policy elsewhere were not clear to t=
hose who embarked on that path.<br>
<br>
Such stories can also work out differently. Consider Jenkins and Hudson. In=
 my world, I see Jenkins (ASL)=C2=A0</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:=
1ex"></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Correction, MIT</div><div><br></div><=
div>But that is still very close to ASL</div><div><span></span>=C2=A0</div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">as the &quot;winner&quot; with the more acti=
ve community and Hudson (EPL) as the &quot;looser&quot;. Surely, Jenkins do=
esn&#39;t accept contributions under EPL [2] but I never heard anybody comp=
lain about that because (or I didn&#39;t put me ear to the right places).<b=
r>
<br>
So if the community had flocked to AOO, would anybody complain?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
-- Richard<br>
<br>
[1] <a href=3D"http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html</a><br>
[2] <a href=3D"https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Docum=
ent#GovernanceDocument-3rdpartylibrarylicensesinthecore" target=3D"_blank">=
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Document#GovernanceD=
ocument-3rdpartylibrarylicensesinthecore</a><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <a href=3D"javascript:;" onclick=3D"_e(event, &#39;=
cvml&#39;, &#39;legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org&#39;)">legal-discuss-u=
nsubscribe@apache.org</a><br>
For additional commands, e-mail: <a href=3D"javascript:;" onclick=3D"_e(eve=
nt, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;legal-discuss-help@apache.org&#39;)">legal-discuss=
-help@apache.org</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote><br><br>-- <br>Sent from my phone<br>

--089e0149425e9f4ca1051d107cae--