openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <>
Subject Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
Date Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:01:16 GMT
Thank you Pedro for the very well thought out and politely presented 
explanation of your point.  It's very helpful to have this kind of 
honest and detailed discussion, especially when tempers run high, and 
doubly so when there's such a clear (and unfortunate) distrust between 
AOOo community members and folks working on TDF/LO.

Personally, I agree: the point is that if TDF/LO also encourages / 
documents as an additional optional step / even simply allows in some 
obvious public way for people submitting patches that could apply to 
AOOo under both licenses, that would be a big win for the ecosystem. 
AOOo code will already be fully useable by LO, so I find it hard to see 
what the harm is in allowing TDF/LO contributors to know about the 
option of dual licensing specific patches under the AL.

This is certainly not something aimed at hurting LO, and certainly 
doesn't apply to new or changed work in LO.  But it would be nice to 
discuss the possibility of having code that both projects can use 
without getting everyone's hackles up.  Especially since the alternative 
seems to be that Simon (I think) is saying he'd effectively rather see 
everyone contributing code exclusively to one project, and explicitly 
not allowing it to be contributed into the other.

This is exactly why I believe in the Apache license.  I believe that 
*people* should be free.  Users of our Apache software should be free to 
use it as they see fit.  If they contribute changes back, that's great - 
but what's important for open source is that humans now have access to a 
wealth of powerful software for free that they can use openly, easily, 
and for their own purposes, without undue restrictions.

- Shane

P.S. and really, while the iCLA is a required step to become a committer 
at Apache, it really shouldn't be such a large club to hit us over the 
head repeatedly.  It's not needed for most patches like I thought we 
were discussing here.

On 10/25/2011 7:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Simon;
> I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Ethos is
> something that goes well beyond a license, and once you
> read the iCLA its not an imposible thing to ask ( you
> signed it), and its surely not what SUN had in place.
> That said, and its something I have argued about
> publicly with Rob, while the iCLA is a requisite to
> become a committer, it is not a requisite to contribute.
> Furthermore, once we start doing releases (and trust me,
> we will get there) they are likely to start including AL2
> code anyways.
> Am I naive? Yes. I was never part of the previous OOo
> community led by SUN so perhaps not having that trauma
> helps me see things a lot simpler than they are.
> There is an evident lack of confidence in us over there
> and as I said before, in private, we cant start activities
> like a shared security list if there is no confidence first.
> I stand to the principle that we are neutral, and that
> every vendor or community member is free to join or leave
> whenever they want
> Pedro.
> --- On Tue, 10/25/11, Simon Phipps<>  wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011
>> at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni<>
>> wrote:
>> If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2
>> for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge
>> advance to get a bit nearer both camps.
>> Given licenses are the expression of the ethos of a
>> community, it's disingenuous and divisive to assume any
>> community will drop its governance approach like this,
>> Pedro. It translates as "the path to collaboration is
>> your surrender; we can negotiate once you've done
>> that".  You make it sound so innocent, too, by missing
>> out the other requirement that Apache would have for
>> contributors to sign an ICLA and thus join Apache :-)
>> S.

View raw message