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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
Next » 12
Charles-H. Schulz Charles-H. Schulz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gianluca, Allen,

My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle.

Best,

charles.

Le 4 juin 2011, 6:26 PM, "Gianluca Turconi" <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

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 co...
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, h...

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
[hidden email] guidelines + more: h...

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

In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:33:26, Charles-H. Schulz  
<[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.

I'm reading the Groklaw article right now. is this

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011060314010442

isn't it?

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

In reply to this post by Charles-H. Schulz
On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gianluca, Allen,
>
> My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
> Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
> anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle.
>

Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I mean Oracle is on a get out
strategy. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off
to someone like IBM for real dollars? To a corporate something has value if
they see potential to make money out of it and neither Sun nor Oracle really
did. Ok, Oracle will still own the copyright but in effect the Apache
license means its pretty much a token.  I should think there is probably
broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.

Best,

>
> charles.
>
> Le 4 juin 2011, 6:26 PM, "Gianluca Turconi" <[hidden email]>
> a
> écrit :
>
> 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 co...
> 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, h...
>
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
> [hidden email] guidelines + more: h...
>
> --
> 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

Eduardo Alexandre Eduardo Alexandre
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

2011/6/4 Ian Lynch <[hidden email]>

> On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Gianluca, Allen,
> >
> > My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
> > Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
> > anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle.
> >
>
> Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I mean Oracle is on a get out
> strategy. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off
> to someone like IBM for real dollars?
>

they did best:
Are trying to recruit workers "volunteers" at no cost.

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

In reply to this post by Ian Lynch
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I should think there is probably
> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.

Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
neither necessary nor required.  What was required was a standard
Software Grant.  Once that was provided neither side has pursued it
any further.

As the Apache model is intentionally not based on Copyright
Assignment, a grant of the copyright would quickly become irrelevant
over time as people make contributions based on the terms specified in
the Individual Contributor License Agreement and in the Apache
License, Version 2.0 itself.

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

In reply to this post by Eduardo Alexandre
On 4 June 2011 18:54, Eduardo Alexandre <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2011/6/4 Ian Lynch <[hidden email]>
>
> > On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Gianluca, Allen,
> > >
> > > My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw
> analysis.
> > > Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
> > > anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle.
> > >
> >
> > Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I mean Oracle is on a get
> out
> > strategy. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it
> off
> > to someone like IBM for real dollars?
> >
>
> they did best:
> Are trying to recruit workers "volunteers" at no cost.
>

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Well it would if Oracle had some
business model based on some control over a proprietary strain of OOo but I
just don't see that. IBM yes with Symphony but I don't believe Oracle knows
how to market office productivity tools.  In any case they could just use
LibreO if that was all they wanted.

--
> 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

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

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

In reply to this post by Sam Ruby-2
Hi *,

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Ruby <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I should think there is probably
>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
>> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
>
> Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
> neither necessary nor required.

I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle
would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache
and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for
Apache, nor for TDF.

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

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

Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Le 2011-06-04 17:29, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :

> Hi *,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Ruby<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I should think there is probably
>>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
>>> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
>>
>> Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
>> neither necessary nor required.
>
> I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle
> would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache
> and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for
> Apache, nor for TDF.
>
> ciao
> Christian
>

Could not Apache Foundation do the same thing once it got the code?

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

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

Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 06:19:31PM -0400, Marc Paré wrote:

> Le 2011-06-04 17:29, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
>> I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle
>> would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache
>> and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for
>> Apache, nor for TDF.
>>
>> ciao
>> Christian
>>
>
> Could not Apache Foundation do the same thing once it got the code?

The Apache Foundation releases software only under the Apache License 2.0.
Other entities may take ASF-released code and bundle it in products licensed
under less permissive terms, including proprietary products and copyleft
products.

What the ASF will not do is take the code that came their way via the software
grant from Oracle and release it under terms that *prevent* companies like IBM
from including it in proprietary products.

Disclaimer: I participate in projects at the ASF, 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

Dennis E. Hamilton Dennis E. Hamilton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by marcpare4
It seems very clear that the Apache Foundation will not do that -- re-license.  They have neither desire nor self-interest in so doing, based on what their high-level participants have said.

However, by reintegrating the Apache OpenOffice.org bits, LibreOffice can do it themselves.  It would require carefully managing the code provenance, because of the restructuring and patches that LibreOffice has already done.  But it can be done that way.  

In that respect, the sooner the Apache OpenOffice incubator has the OpenOffice.org someplace under the AFL 2.0 license, the sooner that is useful to you for your own relicensing purposes.  (I have no idea why you want MPL, and whether there is any clash with the patent terms in AFL 2.0, but I don't need to know.)

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Paré [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 15:20
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Le 2011-06-04 17:29, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :

> Hi *,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Ruby<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I should think there is probably
>>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the
>>> copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
>>
>> Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
>> neither necessary nor required.
>
> I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle
> would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache
> and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for
> Apache, nor for TDF.
>
> ciao
> Christian
>

Could not Apache Foundation do the same thing once it got the code?

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


--
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: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Marvin Humphrey
Hi Marvin, *,

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Marvin Humphrey <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The Apache Foundation releases software only under the Apache License 2.0.
> Other entities may take ASF-released code and bundle it in products licensed
> under less permissive terms, including proprietary products and copyleft
> products.

The problem is that OOo includes quite a bit of thirdparty stuff, none
of those bein Apache-licensed and thus without a chance of being
included in the apache-project. So very likely the code that hooks
that code up into OOo will be dumped along with those external stuff
and thus it is very unclear what will be covered by the grant, and
what not. As far as I know, there is only the "intent" of Oracle to
donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear statement has been
made as to what exact sourcecode this will cover.
It's not even clear whether it will be the current codebase or some
older version IBM is basing their version on.

"The initial source will consist of a collection of OpenOffice.org
files." is more than vague about this.

And before accusing me of "bashing IBM":
I can only draw my conclusions from the very information that is
given. That is ~NULL from Oracle's side (only info is that it is even
more unclear what the situation will be regarding extensions developed
by Sun/Oracle), and a little from IBM, as they're the ones driving the
proposal.
Everyone agrees that there needs to be cleanup regarding the
thirdparty code, to meet the Apache license requirements, not not have
non-apache code around.
And I guess nobody will doubt that IBM will be doing most of this
work, maybe with a little help of Oracle. I can only assume they have
a plan about it. Newcomers will not have enough experience with the
codebase to get this done quickly/in a reasonable timeframe, and the
number of experienced people who have added themselves to the proposal
is still too small to handle without major help from the IBM devs. The
non-code contributers won't help in this task.
Now if you were IBM, would you drop your bridges that you built to
hook up the OOo-code to your product just to cleanup a different
codebase and do all the integration work again?
I doubt that.
Also by their few (as written earlier, I can only remember two)
contributions that were all based on old codelines (and thus caused
much work to integrate into OOo), at least to me it is far from clear
how/with what codebase the project will start and hence what will be
available under the Apache License.

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

Dennis E. Hamilton Dennis E. Hamilton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Since the third-party stuff is already integrated into LibreOffice, it doesn't matter whether it passes through the Apache OpenOffice incubator or not.  You have it and you are using it the same way OpenOffice.org was using it.

What I think is more important is the opportunity the bits that will be under AFL 2.0 provide to The Document Foundation if it is desired to re-license as other than LGPL3+.

 - Dennis

PS: My understanding from posts by Apache officials on the incubator-general discussion list is that Apache has submitted the license document.  It is now up to Apache to decide to accept OpenOffice.org and create an incubator podling, as they are called.  Oracle staff has said they will assist the podling in transferring the OpenOffice.org artifacts to Apache custody.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christian Lohmaier
<http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/msg06379.html>
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 16:04
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[ ... ]

The problem is that OOo includes quite a bit of thirdparty stuff, none of those bein Apache-licensed and thus without a chance of being included in the apache-project. So very likely the code that hooks that code up into OOo will be dumped along with those external stuff and thus it is very unclear what will be covered by the grant, and what not. As far as I know, there is only the "intent" of Oracle to donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear statement has been made as to what exact sourcecode this will cover.
[ ... ]


--
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: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Hi Dennis, *;

(sorry to you for mailing twice, I did mean to send it to the list,
and not as pm only)

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Since the third-party stuff is already integrated into LibreOffice, it doesn't matter whether it passes through the Apache OpenOffice incubator or not.  You have it and you are using it the same way OpenOffice.org was using it.

Yes, the thirdparty stuff by itself doesn't matter, but as I also
wrote: What matters is the code that hooks up this thirdparty.

> What I think is more important is the opportunity the bits that will be under AFL 2.0 provide to The Document Foundation if it is desired to re-license as other than LGPL3+.

What you also miss is the second point I mentioned, namely what
version will that codebase be?
There is no point in having a 3-4 year old codebase. That would be
useless to TDF/LO (useless to the whole community IMHO - but as it is
nowhere stated what the agreement covers..)

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

Sam Ruby-2 Sam Ruby-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Christian Lohmaier
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> As far as I know, there is only the "intent" of Oracle to
> donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear statement has been
> made as to what exact sourcecode this will cover.

The ASF has a signed software grant with a specific list of source files.

> It's not even clear whether it will be the current codebase or some
> older version IBM is basing their version on.

It is the codebase on openoffice.org.  The intent is to move the full
version history.  The mechanics of this have yet to be worked out.

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

Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Hi Sam, *,

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Sam Ruby <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Christian Lohmaier
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [...]
>> It's not even clear whether it will be the current codebase or some
>> older version IBM is basing their version on.
>
> It is the codebase on openoffice.org.  The intent is to move the full
> version history.  The mechanics of this have yet to be worked out.

Thanks a lot for this important info!

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

Olav Dahlum-2 Olav Dahlum-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Ok, information overflow. I know we're early in the stage, but I'm
a bit unsure about what I should tell people. I see a lot of
possibilities with ASF on board and as the web expertise is strong
in that camp, also the realisation of some dreams. I dunno too much
about ASF licensing, but how different will it be from the current
situation? Several have pointed out IBM Symphony, which indeed contain
elements from OOo, as a culprit. But the LGPL allows that, and to me
that doesn't sound too far from ASF licensing. And after reading a lot
of your e-mails, I'm convinced about OOo still being a viable base for
several projects adapting the code to their own taste, even if we don't
quite agree on the licenses. I think the most important bit is that
they're compatible with each other, which to me sounds quite feasible.
I also find the possibility of IBM among other users actually
contributing to the source and publicly announcing their support
highly intriguing too. I'm involved in more than one project basing its
software on this code base. So I'm not only speaking as an LibreOffice
contributor here. I think we can indeed come to a mutual agreement
benefiting all parties here. However, I didn't say it will be easy...

Sincerely,
Olav Dahlum

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

In reply to this post by Ian Lynch
"Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid?"

I don't think he is.

"If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to someone like IBM for real dollars?"

How do I know that it did not happen? do you know what negotiation occurred between Oracle and IBM, do you know the terms they agreed to?  all I know is that whitin 30 minutes of the Oracle announce there was 3 page-long blog from IBMers linking each-other and prasing it... that is not reacting to a news, that is an orchestrated PR campaign.

" I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason "
Sure.. Who knows what footnote there is regarding the Trademark.. Oracle, for example, grant unlimited use of the mark to Apache, but reserve the right to use the mark itself as it see fit? with a well crafted NDA to boot ?

Then drop the code to Apache... see what happen. the worse thing that can happen is that it dies... which from Oracle point of view is the same as if they did not transfer the code...(for all intent and purpose the openOffice.org project _is_ dead, look at http://hg.services.openoffice.org/?sort=lastchange if you have any doubt) and at best the code evolve well, and who knows, Apache can even achieve what Oracle didn't: lure honest Free Software people to unwittingly promote close-source by agreeing to contribute under the Apache License.... and at some point they can take it all back ( a bug^Hfeature of the Apache License) and use the Trademark to capture a significant part of an unsuspecting market (we, on these lists may be very aware of who the players are and who does what... but the public at large is not)

What a beautiful business plan. at worse you don't lose anything, at best you got a ton of work for free.

Note: Trademark are usually not that important for developer centric application/libraries... who remember what ethereal was? everybody moved on to wireshark... Hudson is already a footnote in history, anybody that matter to that project already knows that Jenkins is their new home... Xfree86 ? (come to think of it, I'm surprised they didn't apply to Apache.. it seems to be the weapon of choice for counter-fork these days...) but for end-users of a product like OpenOffice.org that is a different story.

And just in case that is not clear to some readers:
If you contribute code under the Apache License, you might just as well have contributed that code to Oracle with copyright assigignment. The copryright assignment was there only to nullify the protection granted to you by the GPL as far as the assignee (Oracle) is concerned. Apache License achieve the same thing, just more straight forwardly, with a much more polish PR spin on it.

So if you had objection to contribute to Oracle under these terms you should be just as reluctant to contribute anything under the Apache License.

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

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

On 5 June 2011 09:19, Norbert Thiebaud <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid?"
>
> I don't think he is.
>
> "If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to
> someone
> like IBM for real dollars?"
>
> How do I know that it did not happen?


Because such transactions (if anything other than trivial) have to be
recorded and it would get out. There are regulatory systems, auditors etc.

do you know what negotiation occurred
> between Oracle and IBM, do you know the terms they agreed to?


No but then a negative doesn't prove a positive. If you want to look for
conspiracies you can find them almost anywhere. On balance looking at the
evidence the most likely explanation is ASF said they didn't need the
copyright (confirmed by their people) IBM have an interest in the code for
Symphony. Oracle have no real interest in the code but need somewhere to put
it even if only for PR. They aren't going to give it to TDF for several
reasons so where do they put it? ASF is a very logical choice given the
other constraints. Ok, they *might* have done some  convoluted backhand deal
with IBM to ensure it was a permissive license but I don't see why they
would need to, it was the logical thing to do for them anyway. It could be
that IBM will take on some Oracle coders, I don't know, and I suppose that
would be a form of payment but its small stuff in the scheme of things.

 all I know is
> that whitin 30 minutes of the Oracle announce there was 3 page-long blog
> from IBMers linking each-other and prasing it... that is not reacting to a
> news, that is an orchestrated PR campaign.
>

Surely they will have talked about stuff behind the scenes and they want it
to work. Not very surprising.

" I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason "
> Sure.. Who knows what footnote there is regarding the Trademark.. Oracle,
> for example, grant unlimited use of the mark to Apache, but reserve the
> right to use the mark itself as it see fit? with a well crafted NDA to boot
> ?
>

I think this has now been explained by the ASF people that know licensing
law.

Then drop the code to Apache... see what happen. the worse thing that can
> happen is that it dies... which from Oracle point of view is the same as if
> they did not transfer the code...(for all intent and purpose the
> openOffice.org project _is_ dead, look at
> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/?sort=lastchange if you have any doubt)
> and at best the code evolve well, and who knows, Apache can even achieve
> what Oracle didn't: lure honest Free Software people to unwittingly promote
> close-source by agreeing to contribute under the Apache License....


But there is an argument that if we want odf file format to succeed the more
people commercial or otherwise that produce software supporting it the
better. If you are strongly copyleft at all costs you will say this is too
Machiavellian to be supported. OTOH, others might say the end justifies the
means. Individuals will have to make up their own minds.


> and at
> some point they can take it all back ( a bug^Hfeature of the Apache
> License)
> and use the Trademark to capture a significant part of an unsuspecting
> market (we, on these lists may be very aware of who the players are and who
> does what... but the public at large is not)
>

I don't see how it is possible to "take it all back" Once licensed that code
and subsequent derivatives are not in their control. Just like LO can go on
developing as before. If they fork the project under their own new license,
yes they could make a proprietary version but then so can anyone. I don't
see that in Oracles plans - if it was why bother with ASF at all? To drag in
some developers? Well possibly but they could argue that they already put in
their fair share of development funding over the years.

What a beautiful business plan. at worse you don't lose anything, at best
> you got a ton of work for free.
>

Don't forget Sun and Oracle paid for a substantial part of what is now OOo
and its derivatives so they could argue they have given the community a ton
of work for free.

Note: Trademark are usually not that important for developer centric

> application/libraries... who remember what ethereal was? everybody moved on
> to wireshark... Hudson is already a footnote in history, anybody that
> matter
> to that project already knows that Jenkins is their new home... Xfree86 ?
> (come to think of it, I'm surprised they didn't apply to Apache.. it seems
> to be the weapon of choice for counter-fork these days...) but for
> end-users
> of a product like OpenOffice.org that is a different story.
>
> And just in case that is not clear to some readers:
> If you contribute code under the Apache License, you might just as well
> have
> contributed that code to Oracle with copyright assigignment. The copryright
> assignment was there only to nullify the protection granted to you by the
> GPL as far as the assignee (Oracle) is concerned. Apache License achieve
> the
> same thing, just more straight forwardly, with a much more polish PR spin
> on
> it.
>
> So if you had objection to contribute to Oracle under these terms you
> should
> be just as reluctant to contribute anything under the Apache License.
>

I'll let the Apache people reply to that as they are much better qualified
to do so than I am.

Norbert

--
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

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

In reply to this post by Sam Ruby-2

On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I should think there is probably
>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
>> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
>
> Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
> neither necessary nor required.  What was required was a standard
> Software Grant.  Once that was provided neither side has pursued it
> any further.

Can you also clarify the disposition of the trademarks please, Sam?

S.


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

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I should think there is probably
>>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
>>> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
>>
>> Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
>> neither necessary nor required.  What was required was a standard
>> Software Grant.  Once that was provided neither side has pursued it
>> any further.
>
> Can you also clarify the disposition of the trademarks please, Sam?

Incomplete at this time.  I will have more to say when I have
something concrete to report.

> S.

- 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
Next » 12