Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
121 messages Options
Next » 1234567 « Prev
Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 16 Jun 2011, at 17:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote:

>> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
> by now that
>> it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
> and are working from
>> the inside rather of the outside.  You could have also been one of those
> persons with a seat
>> at the table, and together, we would have had twice the voice as Rob Weir.
>
>> Simon Phipps replied:
>> Excuse me? What are all the contributions I am making on that list?
> Chopped liver?
>
> Pretty much, yes.  As a person who chose not to have a seat at the table,
> you are serving up chopped liver for the people at the table to taste and
> decide whether they want to eat it.  That's a fair analogy, I think, if it's
> the one you want to use.

Given I've showed up in both conversations at Apache and made actual tangible contributions of at least the same scale as yours, I honestly have no idea what you are getting at, Allen.

Thanks,

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

todd rme todd rme
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Allen Pulsifer
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
>> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
>> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
>
>> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come over to
> a different project,
>> that likely noone here is really happy with, that was setup as a fait
> acompli, marketed as the
>> "natural upstream", removes rights from people's contributions, and is
> effectively competing
>> (by how the proposal reads)?
>
> Here's what could have been: The world could have woken up one morning to an
> announcement by the TdF congratulating the Apache Foundation for joining the
> OpenOffice community, and stating that it was looking forward to working
> with Apache, IBM and all other interested parties to create the best
> possible open document technologies, and that the TdF would be incorporating
> those technologies into LibreOffice in order to make it the best end-user
> office suite possible.

The world could also have woken up one morning to the announcement
that the ASF was standing in solidarity with the TDF, supported TDFs
move to bring more openness and freedom to OpenOffice, was convinced
by the rapid strides they have made in improving OpenOffice and the
great swell of community support that TDF was the proper place for it,
and that they did not want to do anything that could divide and hurt
the community of an important project like LibreOffice/OpenOffice.
But the world didn't hear that, either.  It's a two-way street, here.

-Todd

--
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

Simos Xenitellis Simos Xenitellis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Allen Pulsifer
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
>> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
>> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
>
>> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come over to
> a different project,
>> that likely noone here is really happy with, that was setup as a fait
> acompli, marketed as the
>> "natural upstream", removes rights from people's contributions, and is
> effectively competing
>> (by how the proposal reads)?
>
 ...snip...
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Allen
>

If that is your best attempt for reconciliation, you are doing it wrong.

Simos

--
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
Robert Derman Robert Derman
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Augustine Souza
Augustine Souza wrote:

> On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
>  
>> End users do not care about
>> who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc.  They
>> just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
>> needs.
>>    
>
> Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are they really like that?
> Or do we say so to support our argument?
>  
As one of those end users I would have to say that that is probably
about right.  Unless something interferes with the quality or
availability of the software or the support available for it, we are
probably not going to care.  Now the situation with OOo and Sun, and
later Oracle was that comments, complaints and requests by end users
seemed to basically be ignored, that does bother end users!  This
situation is notably better with TDF running things.


I could be wrong about this, but I don't think I am, OOo being primarily
the responsibility of a large for profit corporation it was treated like
a proprietary software package as far as development and support was
concerned.  Comparing Microsoft Internet Explorer with Mozilla Firefox
shows that an independent not-for-profit foundation can actually produce
a better software "Product" than a huge for-profit corporation.  So I am
confidently hoping that LO under TDF will actually fare better than OO
under Sun and Oracle.

--
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

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

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Pedro
----- Original Message ----

> From: plino <[hidden email]>
> BRM wrote:
> >
> > Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a  company wanted it could
> > take a
> > GPL product, make whatever  changes it wanted, and distribute it internally
> > to
> > itself  without ever contributing back to the community as a whole.
> > Likewise, it  could also distribute that same project to its customers,
> > making
> > the source available to them and them alone. The community will may  never
> > see
> > any changes from them; yet that is perfectly valid  under all Open Source
> > licenses - even the GPL.
> >
> > Nothing  forces people to work with the community. No license can do that.
> > So
> > please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth -  aside.
> >
>
> So basically GPL is worth nothing because no one can  force anybody to
> contribute back?
>
> Is that an argument in favor of  convincing developers to use the Apache
> license (because they aren't getting  anything back anyway) or to simply stop
> contributing to Open Source  projects?

No. I am merely pointing out the fallacy in what we being said.

To many people assume that GPL means contribute back to the community when it
does not.

So to argue forcing people to contribute back under any FLOSS license is 100%
wrong, when the topic should be about the rights of the end-users - GPL
guarantees them while Apache and other permissive licenses do not necessarily do
so - in most all cases I am aware of they do not at all.

IOW, if you are going to argue differences in the license and reasons to go one
way or the other, at least get your facts straight about the license and its
implications. Then you can have a proper debate on the merits of which one to go
with.

BTW, I typically lean towards using the GPL/LGPL myself. However, that won't
stop me from contributing to BSD/Apache licensed projects either - or even
projects governed by ICLA/CLA/etc (so long as they don't inhibit my abilities to
work on other projects under other licenses). Each license has its use; and each
community has their favored license. TDF/LO favors LGPL/GPL; Apache favors the
more permissive Apache License. So far as I am concerned, with certain
exceptions (e.g. MS Public License) as long as the license is approved by the
Open Source Initiative as being a proper Open Source license - requirements
being derived from the early Debian Social Contract - then what does it matter
as long as the users can make an informed decision? - that is, if they don't
like IBM Symphony they can make the decision to use Apache's OOo or any derived
product, or even LO (since you guys have at least expressed the concept that you
are truly an OOo fork and don't want to be seen as a derived product from
OOo/ApacheOOo). That is just me - and I know many on this list will disagree,
that is their right.

Ben

P.S. On the other hand, I get really pissed at companies like March Hare
Software, Ltd. that have taken open source - even GPL licensed - software and
essentially made them proprietary. It is very hard to move off of CVSNT to a
proper CVS install, or even to another system (e.g. SVN, git) because of the
changes they have made and the non-availability of the source. Yet, they support
projects like TortoiseCVS so that users can continue to use CVSNT.
(http://www.evscm.org/modules/Downloads/)


--
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

Pieter E. Zanstra Pieter E. Zanstra
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug
that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository.
I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either.

I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There,
within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the
"Easyhack" status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved
by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning
code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have
to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day.
P


--
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

Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Pedro
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:27, plino <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>  how can you say that Apache
>> "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you
>> still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
>> doesn't take anything from You.
>>
>
> Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can see that :)
>
> Compared to GPL (which is what Apache is asking developers to give up on) it
> removes the right to be given back any improvement or fix to the code you
> contributed.

As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.

This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
of.

>...

Cheers,
-g

--
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

Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:37, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>...
> And right there you have both reached a point so familiar that even I have written an article about it:
> http://webmink.com/essays/causality/
> "The fact it is still an open question after nearly 30 years of free and open source software experience suggests both outlooks have merits, and we’ll not resolve the question here!"

Nah. I was responding to the "removes rights" comment. Not "which
approach best improves the commons". I don't have much of an opinion
there because I agree with your article: both approaches improve the
commons, and it is very hard to determine which is "better". So I just
avoid relative value judgements on either approach w.r.t. commons.

Cheers,
-g

--
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

Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Pieter E. Zanstra
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
> say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
> the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
> reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
> saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug
> that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository.
> I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either.
>
> I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There,
> within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the
> "Easyhack" status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved
> by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning
> code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have
> to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day.

Absolutely that is what matters. Whether the caretakers place *you* at
the forefront. Big faceless corporations generally don't, while
smaller communities usually do.

I believe the (recent) discussion stemmed from whether end-users care
about the *license*. They mostly want a great product and a responsive
caretaker. That's it. I can guarantee you that my mother, father,
brother, sister, and the rest of my extended family would give me a
blank stare if I told them they needed to use Free Software rather
than proprietary. Crickets would echo in the room.

There *are* end-users who want Free Software. Many of you care
strongly about it, and seek out Free Software. Granted. But when you
look at the tens of millions (hundreds?) of OOo and LO users, they
simply don't care.

Building and providing LibreOffice is a fabulous thing for people who
really care about Free Software. LO has an important place in our
software ecosystem. I just don't think projecting that philosophy onto
the "typical end-user" makes sense, however.

Cheers,
-g

--
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

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

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Greg Stein
Greg Stein wrote
As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.

This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
of.
GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the GPL as well.

The Apache license says you don't have to distribute under the same license and therefore you don't have to provide the source code.

In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the same as releasing the modifications you made???

Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses?
Friedrich Strohmaier Friedrich Strohmaier
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Copyleft vs. "more permissive" (was: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

In reply to this post by BRM
Hi BRM, *,

BRM schrieb:
> From: plino <[hidden email]>

[..]

> Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could
> take a GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute
> it internally to itself without ever contributing back to the
> community as a whole.

True. Anyone using it for his own can do so.

> Likewise, it could also distribute that same project to its customers,
> making the source available to them and them alone.

True, they even can demand a fee for it.

> The community will may never see any changes from them; yet that is
> perfectly valid under all Open Source licenses - even the GPL.

Not true. If one of those customers goes ahead and publishes the source
code, that company can't forbid. This is covered by the GPL. That means:
If IBM put copyleft code (LGPL/GPL) in symphony then I could by a copy,
require the source code and publish it.

> Nothing forces people to work with the community. No license can do
> that.

right, but Your example lacks the point I told.

> So please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth -
> aside.

50% myth remaining ;o)).

[..]

> they only have to provide the source (in that case) to the end-users
> _upon request_ for up to 3 years for each version they release from
> the time they make the "sale". (See the GPL license.)

Which is enough time to get it, even if donations have to be collected
;o))

>> Under the Apache  license any company can take your code, fix it and
>> say: "Hey, this function  in the open source version doesn't work. I
>> just spend a day fixing it  (instead of  months to write it from
>> scratch). Why don't you buy mine  which works?"

> They can do that under the GPL too.

But we can get it back then. Thats a notable difference ;o))


Gruß/regards
--
Friedrich
Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/
LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images


--
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
Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Pedro
Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
>> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
>>
>> This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
>> contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
>> of.
>>
>
> GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone
> else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of
> the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the
> GPL as well.

The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.

So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not
ever ask for the source code.

> The Apache license says you don't have to distribute under the same license
> and therefore you don't have to provide the source code.

Correct.

> In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
> GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
> same as releasing the modifications you made???

Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I
gave a binary to. That is not the same as "the community making the
software".

Also, recognize that I might make a TON of changes. Create a massively
superior product. And then use it *internally*. I might not ever
distribute my work outside of the company.

Or... hey... I might put a web interface on the front of that Office
Suite, and run a web-based version of it. That isn't releasing the
software to anybody, so all of that awesome work that I did does not
have to be released. (see the AGPL if you want to solve this scenario)

> Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to
> have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses?

As a developer, you never had those rights to begin with.

Apache is not removing any rights from You. People who use Apache code
(developers, admins, end-users, hobbyists, companies, etc) have more
rights: they can decide whether to return changes or not. But they do
not have to operate under Free Software principles. That
understandably bugs people. But as a developer, Apache is not reducing
your rights (the original phrase that I took issue with).

Cheers,
-g

--
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

todd rme todd rme
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
>> GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
>> same as releasing the modifications you made???
>
> Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I
> gave a binary to. That is not the same as "the community making the
> software".

I think you missed the "public free Office Suite" bit.  In that case
the "people you gave the binary to" is "anyone who wants it", which
would include the developers if they want to use the source code.  So
in this case, in practice, having the code as GPL means you must give
the code back to the developers, or rather you must make the code
available for the developers to get for themselves.  This is the
situation software suites like IBM's would have fallen under.

-Todd

--
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

Robert Derman Robert Derman
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Greg Stein
Greg Stein wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
>> say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
>> the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
>> reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
>> saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug
>> that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository.
>> I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either.
>>
>> I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There,
>> within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the
>> "Easyhack" status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved
>> by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning
>> code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have
>> to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day.
>>    
>
> Absolutely that is what matters. Whether the caretakers place *you* at
> the forefront. Big faceless corporations generally don't, while
> smaller communities usually do.
>
> I believe the (recent) discussion stemmed from whether end-users care
> about the *license*. They mostly want a great product and a responsive
> caretaker. That's it. I can guarantee you that my mother, father,
> brother, sister, and the rest of my extended family would give me a
> blank stare if I told them they needed to use Free Software rather
> than proprietary. Crickets would echo in the room.
>
> There *are* end-users who want Free Software. Many of you care
> strongly about it, and seek out Free Software. Granted. But when you
> look at the tens of millions (hundreds?) of OOo and LO users, they
> simply don't care.
>
> Building and providing LibreOffice is a fabulous thing for people who
> really care about Free Software. LO has an important place in our
> software ecosystem. I just don't think projecting that philosophy onto
> the "typical end-user" makes sense, however.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>  
This is exactly how I feel about this, and why I think that TDF forking
the OOo code is the best thing that could have happened.  I suspect that
in the first 1 to three months not much code development happened,
naturally it takes time for things to get started.  So it would be my
best guess that there has been about six months of software development
under TDF.  That being the case, it seems like the LO software package
has been evolving and improving at from 4 to 8 times the pace that it
was under Sun/Oracle.



 I have been on the OOo discuss list since 2001 perhaps even 2000, its
hard to remember, anyway, from all the various comments and complaints
over the years it seems like the real show-stoppers got fixed and the
nuisance problems just got ignored for the most part.  Now it seems like
with an all volunteer group rather than developers being assigned chores
by corporate management, all the bugs are being addressed in a more
impartial way.  Not having done any programming since college and BASIC,
I don't know how to read C++ source code, but I have read here that
there has been more work at cleaning up the source code, removing
remarked out lines of code, and such during the last 6 months than
during the previous 6 years.


An example of M$ work, Vista was well over a year late in being
released, and even then it was a horrible mess!  Over the years one
theme on the OOo Discuss List was a sort of competition between OOo and
M$ Office.  I think the only way to judge the relative merits of two
such software suites is by relative user satisfaction.  By that metric
it always seemed that OOo was about 2 to 3 years behind M$ Office,
judging by the talk on the list.  Now if M$ continues at their current
rate of progress, and if LO does likewise, then sometime during the next
year LO would pass M$ Office in user satisfaction.  What could be better
than that!?

--
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: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps
I am not happy with Allen's characterization of Simon's participation.

I suspect the difference is that Allen put himself on the list of initial committers and is now on the podling PPMC at Apache.  Simon did not choose to put himself on that list.

That's Simon's business.  

Simon has been a vocal, active participant in the run-up to the Apache Incubator vote to accept the Oracle contribution and on the public lists that are now established for the Apache podling.

I, for one, welcome any contributions that Simon cares to make, and that Allen will be making.  

I should point out that it is a waste of time to become an initial committer and member of the podling PPMC with the goal of canceling Rob Weir's (or anyone else's) vote, because there is rarely any voting, *especially* on technical matters.  I am learning as a newcomer there that Apache is a *serious* inclusive meritocracy and it is better to look at it as there being no one who has a privileged seat at the table.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 09:37
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 16 Jun 2011, at 17:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote:

>> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
> by now that
>> it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
> and are working from
>> the inside rather of the outside.  You could have also been one of those
> persons with a seat
>> at the table, and together, we would have had twice the voice as Rob Weir.
>
>> Simon Phipps replied:
>> Excuse me? What are all the contributions I am making on that list?
> Chopped liver?
>
> Pretty much, yes.  As a person who chose not to have a seat at the table,
> you are serving up chopped liver for the people at the table to taste and
> decide whether they want to eat it.  That's a fair analogy, I think, if it's
> the one you want to use.

Given I've showed up in both conversations at Apache and made actual tangible contributions of at least the same scale as yours, I honestly have no idea what you are getting at, Allen.

Thanks,

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


--
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: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Augustine Souza
Why is that a poor picture?

I am confident that some users choose Open/LibreOffice distributions for ideological reasons.

I also think many adopt software because they have a need that it satisfies in their use of it in creating and interchanging documents and the FOSS assurance has little meaning for them.  It simply is not relevant in their world.

What's poor about that?

Is it more important that LO be a political weapon than it be useful to people who have work to do?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Augustine Souza [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 07:18
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> End users do not care about
> who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc.  They
> just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
> needs.

Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are they really like that?
Or do we say so to support our argument?

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

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Greg Stein
I want to clear up one thing (I hope):

  >> Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to
  >> have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses?

  >As a developer, you never had those rights to begin with.

  >Apache is not removing any rights from You. People who use Apache code
(developers, admins, end-users, hobbyists, companies, etc) have more
rights: they can decide whether to return changes or not. But they do
not have to operate under Free Software principles. That
understandably bugs people. But as a developer, Apache is not reducing
your rights (the original phrase that I took issue with).

If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license that requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with the changes to my code that they make.  

There have been licenses like that, some of which were satisfied by patches being provided and not the whole source of the downstream use of the source code, possibly embedded in a proprietary software product.

Not sure how that sort of thing is enforceable, but as a copyright holder I think that comes under the exclusive rights that are mine, to be licensed as I see fit, at least in the US.

 - Dennis

PS: It is the case that neither the GPL nor APLv2 have such a compulsory condition and it would be interesting to see what the FSF would say in the event someone sublicensed a GPL derivative in that manner.  I suppose there could be a similar sublicensing of an APLv2 derivative, but not sure the Apache Foundation would have anything to say about it at all so long as the conditions of ALv2 were otherwise satisfied.



-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:05
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
>> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
>>
>> This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
>> contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
>> of.
>>
>
> GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone
> else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of
> the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the
> GPL as well.

The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.

So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not
ever ask for the source code.

> The Apache license says you don't have to distribute under the same license
> and therefore you don't have to provide the source code.

Correct.

> In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
> GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
> same as releasing the modifications you made???

Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I
gave a binary to. That is not the same as "the community making the
software".

Also, recognize that I might make a TON of changes. Create a massively
superior product. And then use it *internally*. I might not ever
distribute my work outside of the company.

Or... hey... I might put a web interface on the front of that Office
Suite, and run a web-based version of it. That isn't releasing the
software to anybody, so all of that awesome work that I did does not
have to be released. (see the AGPL if you want to solve this scenario)

> Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to
> have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses?

As a developer, you never had those rights to begin with.

Apache is not removing any rights from You. People who use Apache code
(developers, admins, end-users, hobbyists, companies, etc) have more
rights: they can decide whether to return changes or not. But they do
not have to operate under Free Software principles. That
understandably bugs people. But as a developer, Apache is not reducing
your rights (the original phrase that I took issue with).

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Greg Stein
+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:37
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
> say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
> the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
> reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
> saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug
> that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository.
> I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either.
>
> I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There,
> within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the
> "Easyhack" status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved
> by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning
> code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have
> to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day.

Absolutely that is what matters. Whether the caretakers place *you* at
the forefront. Big faceless corporations generally don't, while
smaller communities usually do.

I believe the (recent) discussion stemmed from whether end-users care
about the *license*. They mostly want a great product and a responsive
caretaker. That's it. I can guarantee you that my mother, father,
brother, sister, and the rest of my extended family would give me a
blank stare if I told them they needed to use Free Software rather
than proprietary. Crickets would echo in the room.

There *are* end-users who want Free Software. Many of you care
strongly about it, and seek out Free Software. Granted. But when you
look at the tens of millions (hundreds?) of OOo and LO users, they
simply don't care.

Building and providing LibreOffice is a fabulous thing for people who
really care about Free Software. LO has an important place in our
software ecosystem. I just don't think projecting that philosophy onto
the "typical end-user" makes sense, however.

Cheers,
-g

--
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
BRM BRM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by todd rme
----- Original Message ----

> From: todd rme <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 3:13:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
OpenOffice

>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Ben  explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some  more:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino <[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >>
> >> In the context of a public free Office Suite  isn't that the same? If under
> >> GPL you MUST release the source as  GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
> >> same as releasing the  modifications you made???
> >
> > Nope. Again, because I only need to  release it to the people that I
> > gave a binary to. That is not the same  as "the community making the
> > software".
>
> I think you missed the  "public free Office Suite" bit.  In that case
> the "people you gave the  binary to" is "anyone who wants it", which
> would include the developers if  they want to use the source code.  So
> in this case, in practice, having  the code as GPL means you must give
> the code back to the developers, or  rather you must make the code
> available for the developers to get for  themselves.  This is the
> situation software suites like IBM's would have  fallen under.
 
Wrong. OOo, TDF/LO, etc may be making a public release. IBM, for example, may
not.

They are only releasing to people who _pay them_ for the product. _ONLY_ those
people (the ones they specifically distributed the product to) are required to
be able to receive it - not necessarily the developer they drew the code from.

Someone could take TDF/LO and make changes and do the same thing - only release
to their paying customers.
And they only have to give the source to one of those paying customers - not
anyone that comes along and asks for it.
Granted, if _one_ of those paying customers asked for the source they would then
have the rights to pass it back to TDF/LO, but you cannot rely on that
happening. Their paying customers are guaranteed that right by the GPL;  but
that GPL grants _you_ as the developer nothing other than that.

So as Greg said, who has the rights (per the GPL) to receive the source is not
necessarily the same as the community. The only people that have rights to
receiving the source are the ones that the product was specifically distributed
to. If you are are not someone that received the product distributed by them,
then you have no rights to receive the source - plain & simple.

Ben


--
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

Simos Xenitellis Simos Xenitellis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Greg Stein
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Greg Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
>>> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
>>>
>>> This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
>>> contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
>>> of.
>>>
>>
>> GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone
>> else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of
>> the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the
>> GPL as well.
>
> The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
> the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
> those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.
>
> So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
> on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
> might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not
> ever ask for the source code.
>

It's a common misconception. If a TV uses Linux (most LCD/LED TV use Linux),
you do not need to show evidence you bought one in order to ask for
the Linux source code.

See the GPLv2 (per Linux kernel) license text,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

“Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to give **any third party**, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution,”

This misconception is mentioned and then explained often at the
http://gpl-violations.org/ mailing list.

The copyright holder ends up doing the suing for the source code in
order to make a manufacturer comply.
It is easier to do so, with more chances for success. Then, once the
manufacturer complies,
anyone can easily get the source code. And manufacturers do comply.

And talking about TVs, a certain manufacturer uses both copyleft and
permissive software
in order to make the firmware. While you get the source code of the
copyleft software, there is no
mention whatsoever for the permissive software.

Simos

--
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 » 1234567 « Prev