openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion ...)
Date Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:40:31 GMT
I appreciate all your diligence about licenses. It is valuable. Whatever you want to call this
thread ...

One intention was to discuss what if anything is required with respect to trademarks when
ANY third party product is (re)based on Apache OpenOffice.

For example it cannot be called OpenOffice. If there are exceptions to this then these should
be openly and explicitly acknowledged. I am not saying that there are any.

You are missing the idea of creating a Powered By designation which is about trademark and
not the license.

If no one is interested then fine. If everyone is happy with the status quo so be it, but
I don't think it is the case.


Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 30, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:
> From the Chair,
> I need to speak up about the "rebasing" business.
> 1. Use of the ALv2 has nothing to do with trademarks, so this conversation should be
on a separate thread.  
> 2. However, it probably should not be held here and certainly not privately by the PMC.
 If someone wants to pursue it, I suggest these observations be checked with an authoritative
source on a more-appropriate list, perhaps legal-discuss.  Absent that, I request that this
conversation not go any farther.
> - Dennis
> - - - - - - - - - - -
> 3. Whatever the term "rebase" signified, I think we can all agree that it is about a
fork (or a "refork: if you prefer).   
> 4. At the ASF, forking is a feature.  The only requirement is that the ALv2 (and any
other applicable licenses) be honored.  I know, people can be unhappy and will object.   But
the ASF position, to the extent one is needed, is captured by "forking is a feature."
> 5. The ASF *does*not* police the use of ALv2 content by third parties.  The ASF prides
itself on how it manages third-party and contributed content.  The ASF is meticulous about
IP provenance.  That is part of the way in which the ASF operates in the public interest by
being an extraordinary open-source citizen.  That is what the ASF does.  It is not about what
others might or might not do.
> 6. It is up to third parties to satisfy themselves that they are operating with any incorporated
ALv2 code and its derivatives appropriately.  It is not the business of the ASF to warrant
anything about such activity.  Those who wish to reuse and repurpose code from the third party
must also satisfy themselves.  That has nothing directly to do with the ASF.
> 7. Here is further evidence that the ASF is not the ALv2 sheriff over third-party reliance
and handling of ALv2 code in their works.
>  It is perfectly clear that closed-source works that have code dependencies 
>  on ALv2 works of others are not required to provide an account to anybody,
>  as far as ALv2 license terms go, beyond the appropriate provision of 
>  LICENSE/NOTICE files.  
> - - - - - -
>  I have personally confirmed that a kindred does indeed satisfy
the LICENSE/NOTICE provisions of the ALv2.  Those files were, in fact, easier for me to find
in the installed binaries than in installs of Apache OpenOffice distributions.
>  I have also remarked, in a discussion elsewhere, that I feel the way ALv2 is characterized
in individual derivative files I've examined is, to my taste, a bit sketchy.  However, the
observed practice is not unusual and even happens in the publishing industry where there tends
to be serious attention to rights and permissions.  
>  I don't think there is a legality question, just my own fussiness, and that of some
others, in how provenance and attribution is accounted for in our own work.  It should be
well-known by now that my fussiness threshold is rather different than that of many other
developers [;<).  
>  This does not matter.  I am not an ALv2 cop either.  I can only satisfy myself on what
I rely on and how I am comfortable that I know enough about its provenance to feel safe in
doing so. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis Suárez-Potts [] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 07:58
> To:
> Subject: Re: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List
> Hi,
>> On 29 Aug 15, at 21:13, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>> We should (re)acknowledge what (re)based on Apache OpenOffice requires whatever that
really is.
> Yep.
> [ ... ]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message