Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
Next » 12345 ... 8 « Prev
Allen Pulsifer Allen Pulsifer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

> Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go
to Apache and say "Please let us have that?"

Hello Zaphod,

There are two pieces to Oracle's donation:

1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to distribute
the OpenOffice code under the Apache License.  (To answer the question
Charles just posted, Oracle has retained ownership of the copyrights, and
granted the ASF a license.)

2. Oracle has granted the ASF permission to use the OpenOffice.org
trademark, and has indicated that it will eventually transfer ownership of
that trademark and the openoffice.org internet domain to the ASF.

Just addressing the code, yes, the TDF can take all of the code under the
Apache License, so that part is done.

I think what you are saying though is this: Can we ask the ASF to not go
forward with an Apache OpenOffice project that is licensed under the Apache
License.  The answer is that we can ask and that has been asked.  The
sentiment over at the ASF is that they see value in having an Apache
Licensed project.  With an Apache Licensed project, anyone downstream can
use the code, including TDF, IBM, or anyone else, and they can use it for
open source or closed source derivatives.  That is essentially the ASF's
mission in life.  They are a USA recognized charity (a 501(3)(c), I
believe), that is dedicated to producing software that is free for virtually
any use.  So it is my understanding that having accepted the donation from
Oracle, their preference is to do ahead and convert the code to the Apache
License, so that the core ODF functionality and any other important and
valuable technologies can be adopted into as many projects as possible, both
open source and commercial.  They are welcoming anyone to participate in
that who has an interested in OpenOffice, ODF, free software, etc.  They
have no problem with the TDF using any code that the project produces, and
they welcome contributions from any TDF members, whether they want to
contribute individually or as a group.

That is my understanding.

Allen



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Gianluca Turconi-4 Gianluca Turconi-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:14:16, Allen Pulsifer  
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> 1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to  
> distribute
> the OpenOffice code under the Apache License.  (To answer the question
> Charles just posted, Oracle has retained ownership of the copyrights, and
> granted the ASF a license.)

Is it sure is a license? In Apache list were talking about tax deductions  
for a *donation*.

Are we talking about a *future* and only *possible* donation? Well, if so,  
this seems strange. :)

I would have called it "vaporware", but I respect Apache too much to think  
so.

Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,  
horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:  
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Gianluca Turconi-4 Gianluca Turconi-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Ian Lynch
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 17:59:04, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]>  
ha scritto:

> That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those
> with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code
> don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself.  
> It
> seems inevitable that there will be a copyleft product overseen by TDF  
> and
> an ASF licensed product.

Is it sure there will be a *product*?

That's rather important, because who uses the Apache license is usually  
interested in having a *project* that is a rather different beast. ;-)

Regards,

Gianluca

--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,  
horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:  
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Ian Lynch Ian Lynch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconi <[hidden email]>wrote:

> In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 17:59:04, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]>
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those
>> with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code
>> don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself. It
>> seems inevitable that there will be a copyleft product overseen by TDF and
>> an ASF licensed product.
>>
>
> Is it sure there will be a *product*?
>

I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there
will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum.

>
> That's rather important, because who uses the Apache license is usually
> interested in having a *project* that is a rather different beast. ;-)


Agreed, the IBM proprietary product would be a different beast from LO. But
let's face it there are already many OOo variants out there. I don't think
that changes that much. I think Michael's point about which code
contributions are effectively blocked to which developers is the more
difficult one. Personally I know this is a mess  but making it less of a
mess through cooperation seems a better route than trying to achieve
something unachievable.
--
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Michael Meeks Michael Meeks
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Greg Stein
Hi Greg,

        First - welcome to the list :-) we appreciate more hackers taking an
interest in LibreOffice of course and really good to have you here.
Patches most welcome too BTW :-)

On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 00:21 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> Sure... I can also answer questions, and would be more than happy to
> do that. In any discussion threads that may pop up, about the Apache
> work, I'll also attempt to fill in blanks where I see them.

        Great - there is quite a big one here; Rob's blog's characterisation of
Apache (pwrt. the advantages of 'getting in on the ground floor') has
been interpreted by many as ASF rewarding people who join early
disproportionately to their merit (as and against new people joining
'late') :-) I don't think that is Apache's intention or practise. Alan
picked up on earlier on the list with (excerpted):

On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 09:08 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation for us to get
> involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
> project.
 ...
> If we wait however, we risk being locked out.  The open invitation is get
> involved is only valid for during the incubation proposal stage.  After
> that, we will need "prove our merit" and approval to become a member.  So if
> you sign up now, it is no risk and no obligation.
 ...
> But the time to jump in is now.  We can't wait.

        So the questions are:

                + if we wait, do we risk getting locked out ?
                + after the incubation proposal is accepted is
                  it possible to become a committer ?
                + will people with relevant experience, contribution and
                  merit find it possible to become committers later ?

        You see my answers on the list - I think Apache stays open and does it
right, as a meritocracy, always :-) but it'd be good to back that with
your authority and clear this up. The ground-floor stuff it seems can
easily be twisted into a threat to exclude people that don't join day
one :-)

        Thanks,

                Michael.

--
 [hidden email]  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Gianluca Turconi-4 Gianluca Turconi-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Ian Lynch
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:41:23, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]>  
ha scritto:

> Agreed, the IBM proprietary product would be a different beast from LO.  
> But
> let's face it there are already many OOo variants out there. I don't  
> think
> that changes that much. I think Michael's point about which code
> contributions are effectively blocked to which developers is the more
> difficult one. Personally I know this is a mess  but making it less of a
> mess through cooperation seems a better route than trying to achieve
> something unachievable.

Uhm, I can't speak for the developers and about how much collaboration  
there can be among the two projects, but can I say that, though Oracle's  
decision to license/donate code is perfectly legitimate, this specific  
proposal to join Apache OpenOffice appears like the attempt of a start-up  
corporation to do "shopping for employees with the right know-how" in  
another corporation that works in the same market?

I think it's difficult, now, to improve the situation, because the right  
thing to do for a reunification would have been to release the code under  
its normal and usually used *copyleft* license.

The license change is a pain in the neck for the users too, because they  
may lose several features they are used to and that are covered by  
copyleft licenses.

What a *community* product can you have in this way?

Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,  
horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:  
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Marvin Humphrey Marvin Humphrey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Michael Meeks
Hello,

I'm new here, and I'll only be around for a little while, but I hope it will
be a pleasant visit.

I make my living writing open source search engine software which lives at the
ASF -- Apache Lucy, an incubating project.  I was recently invited to join the
Incubator PMC and accepted, but beyond that and my position on the Apache Lucy
PPMC (Podling Project Management Committee), I don't have any special
authority within the ASF.

I have too many ongoing obligations to participate in OO.o, and have no stake
in the project.  I'm here as an individual volunteer to help everybody out by
picking the low-hanging fruit and responding to easy questions about the ASF
and the Incubator.  Don't take me for an ASF rep -- I'm just some dude on a
mailing list offering unverified info and links.

Michael Meeks wrote:

>  + if we wait, do we risk getting locked out ?  

No.  Merit will always be recognized and new committers accepted.

>  + after the incubation proposal is accepted is
>    it possible to become a committer ?

Becoming a new committer prior to the acceptance of an Incubator podling
merely requires adding your name on the wiki proposal page (in this case,
<http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal>).  Typically people will
also introduce themselves on the [hidden email] list in the
proposal discussion thread and get a "Welcome aboard!" reply from the
proposal's Champion or somebody else, but the formal requirement is being
listed in the proposal when the Incubator PMC votes on it.

After the podling gets going, you have to demonstrate merit and pass a vote
held by the PPMC, which is then ratified by a lazy consensus vote of the
Incubator PMC.

After a podling graduates and becomes a top-level Apache project, becoming a
committer requires a vote by the project's PMC.

So there is, in fact, some benefit to signing up now because the bureaucratic
hurdles are lower.  However, most podlings are eager to increase the diversity
of their committer ranks and the amount of merit you have to demonstrate
before being invited in is pretty low.  I would expect an OO.o podling to be
even more welcoming than most.

>  + will people with relevant experience, contribution and
>    merit find it possible to become committers later ?

Absolutely.

You also don't need to worry about IBM or anybody else dominating the PMC and
calling the shots.  If there was ever an attempt to deny someone with merit
committership for political reasons, someone within the project would raise
the issue with the Board, and there would be hell to pay.  The Board answers
to the Members, of which there are 300-400, all participating as individuals
with a strong investment in preserving the ASF's vendor-neutral stance.

    http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats

    Individuals compose the ASF

    All of the ASF including the board, the other officers, the committers, and the
    members, are participating as individuals. That is one strength of the ASF,
    affiliations do not cloud the personal contributions.

    Unless they specifically state otherwise, whatever they post on any mailing
    list is done as themselves. It is the individual point-of-view, wearing their
    personal hat and not as a mouthpiece for whatever company happens to be signing
    their paychecks right now, and not even as a director of the ASF.

    All of those ASF people implicitly have multiple hats, especially the Board,
    the other officers, and the PMC chairs. They sometimes need to talk about a
    matter of policy, so to avoid appearing to be expressing a personal opinion,
    they will state that they are talking in their special capacity. However, most
    of the time this is not necessary, personal opinions work well.

Hope this helps,

Marvin Humphrey


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Christian Lohmaier-2 Christian Lohmaier-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Allen Pulsifer
Hi Allen, *,

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [...]
> I don't know what vision IBM has for the project.  I don't know what code
> contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I
> don't know what they will be.  I don't know what contributions members of
> the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make.

Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press
releases, that was ended up in OOo was  basically nonexistent. As
you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can
probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before
switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip
service.

The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support

> I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation for us to get
> involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
> project.

Not really, as you first have to "surrender" to the Apache's licence
terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort.

> We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum
> benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM.
> Basically, we can get IBM working for us.

I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive
licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing?
They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working
on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to
ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the
abovementioned accessibility dump.

But before you say: It's not only IBM in the foundation. Then let me
ask: Who else is? Oracle is gone for good. The few  individual
contributers that have enlisted themselves as initial contributers on
the apache wiki are to a big extent non-coder. (Not to say that the
non-code contributors are not important, that's far from being my
point)
I currently find 5 people in that list of whom I'd say the have /some/
idea of the code. And two of those already have a focus on a
side-project/fork of OOo.

So if you ask me who is on the Apache project who is not engaged in
TDF/LO, then the only answer is: IBM.
(But I'm also well aware that the proposal is new, and there might be
more to come, and I'm also aware that to the apache-voting the big
picture doesn't matter, they don't care whether it is considered a
good idea or not. If there are enough people to run the podling and if
IBM can convince them that it is possible to get rid of all the
thirdparty stuff that doesn't comply with the strict licencing terms,
they will approve it as an incubator project)

And I don't really see a point in shifting this perception "now that
nobody cares who enlists".
IMHO you only should enlist yourself if you're really convinced that
the Apache Foundation along with its restrictions/limitations and
rules, esp. regarding licencing are a good idea, when you actually
support the move.

If you do, then go ahead and add yourself, I won't question your decision.

The only "reason" on why the TDF should contribute is to why neooffice
did "join" go-oo at the time: To make grabbing their code easier. But
that is a very, very weak reason in my opinion.

> So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as
> possible.  If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating
> the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can.

What is the point? If it is run by LO people, what is the benefit of
creating another entity instead of letting OOo be what it is (or
better was), and instead focusing only on LibreOffice?

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

lj lj
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies.

Laurence

On 05/06/2011, at 8:41, Christian Lohmaier
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Allen, *,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I don't know what vision IBM has for the project.  I don't know what code
>> contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I
>> don't know what they will be.  I don't know what contributions members of
>> the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make.
>
> Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press
> releases, that was ended up in OOo was  basically nonexistent. As
> you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can
> probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before
> switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip
> service.
>
> The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
> contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
> Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
> he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
> needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
> it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
> branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support
>
>> I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation for us to get
>> involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
>> project.
>
> Not really, as you first have to "surrender" to the Apache's licence
> terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort.
>
>>  We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum
>> benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM.
>> Basically, we can get IBM working for us.
>
> I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive
> licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing?
> They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working
> on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to
> ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the
> abovementioned accessibility dump.
>
> But before you say: It's not only IBM in the foundation. Then let me
> ask: Who else is? Oracle is gone for good. The few  individual
> contributers that have enlisted themselves as initial contributers on
> the apache wiki are to a big extent non-coder. (Not to say that the
> non-code contributors are not important, that's far from being my
> point)
> I currently find 5 people in that list of whom I'd say the have /some/
> idea of the code. And two of those already have a focus on a
> side-project/fork of OOo.
>
> So if you ask me who is on the Apache project who is not engaged in
> TDF/LO, then the only answer is: IBM.
> (But I'm also well aware that the proposal is new, and there might be
> more to come, and I'm also aware that to the apache-voting the big
> picture doesn't matter, they don't care whether it is considered a
> good idea or not. If there are enough people to run the podling and if
> IBM can convince them that it is possible to get rid of all the
> thirdparty stuff that doesn't comply with the strict licencing terms,
> they will approve it as an incubator project)
>
> And I don't really see a point in shifting this perception "now that
> nobody cares who enlists".
> IMHO you only should enlist yourself if you're really convinced that
> the Apache Foundation along with its restrictions/limitations and
> rules, esp. regarding licencing are a good idea, when you actually
> support the move.
>
> If you do, then go ahead and add yourself, I won't question your decision.
>
> The only "reason" on why the TDF should contribute is to why neooffice
> did "join" go-oo at the time: To make grabbing their code easier. But
> that is a very, very weak reason in my opinion.
>
>> So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as
>> possible.  If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating
>> the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can.
>
> What is the point? If it is run by LO people, what is the benefit of
> creating another entity instead of letting OOo be what it is (or
> better was), and instead focusing only on LibreOffice?
>
> ciao
> Christian
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Christian Lohmaier (klammer) Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Man, how I love fullquotes :-/

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies.

Sorry, but what is your point?
my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to
sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just "to have a say"
or "now there are no restrictions yet".

Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache
only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times
that they won't allow other licenses.

Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?

So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially
when you write it as a f'up to my posting.

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

> Man, how I love fullquotes :-/
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies.
>
> Sorry, but what is your point?
> my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to
> sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just "to have a say"
> or "now there are no restrictions yet".
>
> Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache
> only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times
> that they won't allow other licenses.
>
> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?
>
> So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially
> when you write it as a f'up to my posting.
>

If the reason to not "join" Apache is because you are holding
out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think
you are holding out for a lost, lost hope.

Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly
clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle
will keep :/


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Marvin Humphrey Marvin Humphrey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:35:46AM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?

The horse is out of the barn.  Oracle has submitted a signed software grant to
the ASF.  Once the process completes, that code becomes available under the
Apache License 2.0, a *permissive*, attribution-based license.  Oracle cannot
now impose additional copyleft restrictions by adding a new license to the
mix.

Suppose that theoretically, Oracle were to declare tomorrow that in addition
to the ALv2, the OOo codebase would now also be available under the GPL.  That
action would not prevent the formation of the new Incubator podling at the ASF,
because it could be done under the terms of the signed ALv2 software grant.

Once you've granted a permissive license, you can't take it back.

Disclaimer: I participate in ASF projects, but I'm speaking as just some guy
on the internet trying to help everybody out.

Marvin Humphrey


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

lj lj
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except
apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part
of ASF.


Laurence


On 05/06/2011, at 10:11, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>
>> Man, how I love fullquotes :-/
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies.
>>
>> Sorry, but what is your point?
>> my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to
>> sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just "to have a say"
>> or "now there are no restrictions yet".
>>
>> Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache
>> only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times
>> that they won't allow other licenses.
>>
>> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
>> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
>> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?
>>
>> So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially
>> when you write it as a f'up to my posting.
>>
>
> If the reason to not "join" Apache is because you are holding
> out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think
> you are holding out for a lost, lost hope.
>
> Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly
> clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle
> will keep :/
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

The ASF accepts contributions from anyone. You don't have to
be "part" of the ASF to contribute. The ASF is a meritocracy,
and so the more you do, the more you *can* do, and providing
bug fixes, patches, documentation, translations are all
welcome and needed contributions (as with all FOSS projects).

As far as the 'Oracle won't make new licensing agreements', I am
not an Oracle person, but that is the clear indication they have
given me, and one will I have little doubt they mean.

On that last point, btw, LOo/TDF and others (including I think
IBM, although I know that there have been bad history and bad
blood there) are to be commended because it was the pressure
that you all provided that finally encouraged Oracle to release
the s/w. That is *not* easy. When Oracle digs in their heels,
they dig in deep (does Larry wear stilettos?). The fact that
it wasn't a revenue source for them certainly made it easier,
but a victory is a victory. Enjoy the rare one rather than
look for next one ;)

Cheers!

On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev wrote:

> So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except
> apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part
> of ASF.
>
>
> Laurence
>
>
> On 05/06/2011, at 10:11, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>
>>> Man, how I love fullquotes :-/
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but what is your point?
>>> my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to
>>> sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just "to have a say"
>>> or "now there are no restrictions yet".
>>>
>>> Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache
>>> only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times
>>> that they won't allow other licenses.
>>>
>>> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
>>> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
>>> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?
>>>
>>> So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially
>>> when you write it as a f'up to my posting.
>>>
>>
>> If the reason to not "join" Apache is because you are holding
>> out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think
>> you are holding out for a lost, lost hope.
>>
>> Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly
>> clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle
>> will keep :/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
>> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
>> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Christian Lohmaier (klammer) Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Marvin Humphrey
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:35:46AM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
>> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
>> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?
>
> The horse is out of the barn.  Oracle has submitted a signed software grant to
> the ASF.  Once the process completes, that code becomes available under the
> Apache License 2.0, a *permissive*, attribution-based license.  Oracle cannot
> now impose additional copyleft restrictions by adding a new license to the
> mix.

Of course they could. Nobody hinders them from applying different
licenses to the same code. It cannot take back the Apache License, as
it cannot take back the existing LGPL, but that doesn't mean it is
impossible to add another license.

(but I agree with Jim that this is very, very, very unlikely to happen)

> Once you've granted a permissive license, you can't take it back.

Yes, but that wasn't the point to begin with. (and noone here claimed
that this was possible, and nobody requested to not release the code
under the Apache license either). It was a "what would the TDF had
wished for" item - in order to really be able to have a LGPL/MPL dual
license, and not only have MPL for stuff that was added after the
split. .
But as it is more or less moot, as the grant apparently applies to the
whole (including current) codebase, it is almost-as-good (in terms of
code-reuse by the TDF/LibreOffice, independent of collaboration with
the OOo-apache-incubator-project)

There have been claims that the TDF demanded impossible things from
Oracle, but a re-licensing to MPL isn't that much different from
re-licensing to Apache-license from my POV.

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

nabbler nabbler
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Allen Pulsifer
DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature
to be copied/improved in LO. The analogy is opera introducing tabbed
web pages in a browser and firefox later introducing the same
function.

More separately developed ODF compliant products in the market is a
good result, just like there are numerous gnu/linux distributions for
users to choose. The proliferation of many ODF products gives powerful
confidence to users that if apache OO (any other ODF compliant
product( disappears, the user can switch to using LO. It should be
remembered that this cannot occur with m$o and this is the single most
dominant benefit of numerous ODF programs to the user. It is the
"killer reason" to use LO.

In summary, please do not merge apache OO (or any non-(L)GPL) code with LO.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Norbert Thiebaud Norbert Thiebaud
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
"but a victory is a victory. Enjoy the rare one rather than
look for next one ;) "

a 'victory' ? going from a copy-left license to source-sinkhole license ?
are you sure you are posting that on the right ML, or you just enjoy rubbing it in ?
Yeah it is a victory for IBM, no doubt... and a nice departure middle finger from Oracle...
Thanks Apache for lending a helpful hand... they could not have done it without you...
Pardon me if I don't rejoice.

Norbert
marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by nabbler
Le 2011-06-05 05:04, e-letter a écrit :

> DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
> of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
> product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
> imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature
> to be copied/improved in LO. The analogy is opera introducing tabbed
> web pages in a browser and firefox later introducing the same
> function.
>
> More separately developed ODF compliant products in the market is a
> good result, just like there are numerous gnu/linux distributions for
> users to choose. The proliferation of many ODF products gives powerful
> confidence to users that if apache OO (any other ODF compliant
> product( disappears, the user can switch to using LO. It should be
> remembered that this cannot occur with m$o and this is the single most
> dominant benefit of numerous ODF programs to the user. It is the
> "killer reason" to use LO.
>
> In summary, please do not merge apache OO (or any non-(L)GPL) code with LO.
>

Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our
great product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in
Oracle's hands.

We have a truly community oriented and supported product with great
licenses as opposed to a restrictive ASF product. We do not need to join
the ASF OOo project for code as we can include some of it in our product.

Why join a product line that was left in controversy only to join
another group with the same product that is now built on controversy?

This is the reason the TDF group left Oracle/Sun to create a more equal
community. There is no point in participating in a group of unequals again.

Let's just get back to what we are good at doing, leave the lurkers
silent rather than giving them a platform (which is what they want). We
are the community they wish they had.

Cheers

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Sam Ruby-2 Sam Ruby-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by lj
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except
> apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part
> of ASF.

It is not clear to me what you are seeking from Oracle.

While it is true that the ASF will only release the code that was
granted to us under the Apache License, Version 2.0, and furthermore
that we will only accept changes to this code base under terms that
allows us to release those changes under the same license; absolutely
none of this prevents you from taking this code and:

1) integrating your own changes, and releasing the result under AGPLv3.
2) integrating your own changes, and releasing the result under MPL2.
3) doing the above with numerous other licenses and furthermore either
dual licensing or even tri-licensing the code
4) integrating your own changes and releasing the result under a
non-open source license (as long as you comply with the generous terms
of the Apache License)

What perhaps is more important than what you can do with this code is
the fact that you do not need to ask anybody's permission to do so.
You don't need to ask the ASF's permission.  You do not need to ask
Oracle's position.  The Apache License, Version 2.0 gives you the
expressed permission to do any or all of the above.

Furthermore, there is no time limit.  And this not only applies to the
initial donation, but also to any and all enhancement made to this
base under the auspices of the ASF.

From my perspective, everything is totally symmetric.  I am equally OK
with somebody saying "I realize that the original code was made by a
for-profit corporation, but I won't release my changes under terms
that allow it to be reintegrated into a proprietary product" as I am
with a statement that "I realize that the code is open source, but I
won't release my changes under open source terms".

I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is.  It
is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
with the larger community.  Direct participation in the development of
that pool ensures that you can harvest that code back quickly and
easily as there is no need to merge it with other changes that you
held back.  Furthermore the extension points you need for your value
add will be in the base.

Part of this vision is also that participants don't block one another.
 If IBM, for example, has a proprietary value add they should not be
able to block somebody else from contributing substantially similar
functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license.  Similarly, if
LO has some CopyLeft value add, they should not be able to block
others from contributing substantially similar functionality to the
ASF under a more liberal license.

Again, fully symmetrical.

It is also not clear to me what you mean by "part of the ASF".

In order to contribute small patches, you simply need to mail them to
the mailing list or enter them in the bug tracker for the project.  In
order to submit larger changes, an ICLA and possibly a CCLA is
required.  To submit a pre-existing and released component to the ASF,
you fill out a Grant.

That's the extent of your involvement.  Do this enough times and we
may vote you in as a committer in order to lighten up our load in
integrating your patches, and this will give you more of a direct say
in the future direction of the product; and show an interest in the
overall health of the product and we may even pull you into the
Project Management Committee; but none of this is required in order to
participate.

Furthermore, submitting a patch of any size does not obligate you
further.  You don't need to maintain it.  You aren't required to
contribute anything further, related or unrelated to this original
patch.  Ever.

- Sam Ruby

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Ian Lynch Ian Lynch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by nabbler
On 5 June 2011 10:04, e-letter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
> of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
> product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
> imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature
> to be copied/improved in LO. The analogy is opera introducing tabbed
> web pages in a browser and firefox later introducing the same
> function.
>
> More separately developed ODF compliant products in the market is a
> good result, just like there are numerous gnu/linux distributions for
> users to choose. The proliferation of many ODF products gives powerful
> confidence to users that if apache OO (any other ODF compliant
> product( disappears, the user can switch to using LO. It should be
> remembered that this cannot occur with m$o and this is the single most
> dominant benefit of numerous ODF programs to the user. It is the
> "killer reason" to use LO.
>
> In summary, please do not merge apache OO (or any non-(L)GPL) code with LO.


I can see the logic in this argument but also think of the cost. It means
that there is going to be masses of duplication of effort in a scenario
where development resources are at a premium. For me a better practical
outcome would be for the main development effort for core code to be done on
OOo at ASF. It might be that there is never a product released, simply
develop components useful and save all the "release and distribution"
resource, putting it into development. LO and other projects build their
products on those components with as many extensions, improvements etc as
they want under their chosen license.

So whether or not this is achievable with eg LO will depend on whether the
LO steering committee do or do not agree to re-use OOo code. If they don't
there will be at least two diverging forks. Both might flourish, one or both
might die. Only time will tell. My perception is that there is less risk to
the goal of having a free and open document format through cooperation and
sharing and to me that goal is more important than any of the particular
license flavours of OOo. If it was a perfect world I would favour the GPL
for all but it isn't a perfect world.

--
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>

--
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Next » 12345 ... 8 « Prev