openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: OOO and LibreOffice.
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:33:04 GMT
I concur.  It makes no sense for LibreOffice contributors to be asked to make their patches
available under ALv2 as well as the LGPL3+ and MPL that they are already being asked to submit
under (all without any CLA anywhere, of course).  It also makes no further sense to expect
that commercial firms with proprietary implementations will start making code available under
[L]GPL or accepting contributions with such licenses.

There are specific limitations that the different licenses (and the CLA requirement) have
for folks and expecting the other guy to change seems to be nothing but an opportunity cost

For example, I regard [L]GPL code as toxic and I avoid even reading it, although I have filed
an iCLA, am an Apache Podling committer, and am happy to read and contribute
to code under the ALv2 and other permissive licenses, including the venerable BSD license
model.  It's my choice and the ALv2 licensing of the code base is a god-send
for me to the extent it is a playing field I can consider entering.

At the same time, as I'm sure has been noticed, there are many folks who participate in both
the Apache Podling and LibreOffice in various ways.  Apart from our differences,
there is also a great deal where some of us are quite agnostic and have no quarrel with either
and both projects succeeding, along with others, including (for some of us) commercial ones.

My over-riding passion is about achievement of interoperability as well as some increased
quality that is possible with more complete ODF specifications as well as descriptions of
the extent to which ODF is supported in implementations.  I don't care how interoperability
is achieved nor by whom, simply the fact of its achievement.

I say that there are a variety of areas of common interest that can be addressed cooperatively
by the extended community, regardless of whether or not patches and code are shared, and in
whatever directions.  We can and should avoid hot-button issues that become show-stoppers
and focus on areas of agreement.  I believe there are many to be found.  It is for the mutual
benefit of our users and I think that should be the compelling factor.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Meeks [] 
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 02:18
Subject: Re: OOO and LibreOffice.

Hi Rob,

On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 21:03 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> Any chance of TDF requiring Apache 2.0 for new code
> contributions, in addition to their current requirement
> for LGPL/MPL ?

	What an extraordinary question. I had thought it was (by now) fairly
clear that many companies and many volunteer developers around TDF had
made their pragmatic, and in some cases idealistic commitment to
copy-left licensing super-abundantly clear. I don't think that is a
matter of ego, personally.

	It seems ~pointless to suggest a copy-left license dualed with a
non-copy-left license: that is just a non-copy-left license.

	For TDF to -require- that would be incredibly dumb, cf. loosing many of
our developers. Of course, perhaps some of our membership, and more
importantly the developers owning the code might agree to that - but I
for one would argue strongly against it.

> Doing so would open up many more possibilities for future
> collaboration and cooperation.  Not doing so would severely
> constrain possibilities for cooperation.

	Sure - but there are lots of other options for opening up possibilities
for collaboration and co-operation, such as IBM making a commitment to
working with the developer community and respecting the license we (IBM
and the TDF) compromised :-) Of course the TDF door is always open to
new contributors no matter how they have behaved in the past.

	However so far I see no possibility of any such compromise, only of
reality eventually biting. Lets see which ideology is eventually bitten
hardest: it'll be an interesting experiment for sure.



--  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

View raw message