OOo goes to Apache Foundation

l10n
#1

Hi,

Probably you've read the news, OOo code and trademarks were given to
Apache Foundation. For details start reading
here:
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about-oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/
and here: http://www.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-06-01.html

Let me shortly comment this – wearing my localizer hat. Apache
Foundation requires Apache License which is not a copyleft license. It
allows use of the source code – and my translations, too – for the
development of proprietary software. Incidentally, that's what IBM is
doing and probably will do in the future: they after all want code
others wrote for free, while keeping their code proprietary and
occasionally dumping the unimportant parts to an open core to ease
maintenance. I feel reluctant to support this scheme.

Best regards,
Andras

#2

Hi Andras,

I understand your position. I think that the Oracle movement means
they want put code out of GPL for a hipotetical future developpement
(propietary, of course).
This and too that they perhaps want split the developpers community
atracting corporative interest to an OOo supported by Apache, but
feading on the developpement of LibO code.
Why they no changed the their license to Apache model, whithout lose
the leadership? I believe that it's not for favor IBM Symphony.
Simply, OOo in their hands is dead but in hands of AF they would do
money eventually.
Who is the fork now?
Apache is a US entity, I am convinced that his weight has also.

Now, from the viewpoint of a minorized language like mine I do not
care if they use the translation that I have done in recent years to
OOo.org. I wish IBM would make a Galician version too but do not see
it close. Our best strategy, our weaknes, would make it as possible
for the development of payment is made through the TDF and admit
developing extensions in proprietary code.

Excuss my poor english.

Antón Méixome

#3

This means that changes can be cherry picked out and included in
libreoffice, no?
That seems to be good enough. I have to say that my first impression
of new libreoffice is very good. It is so much faster than ooo for
some reason.

Also, may i ask what is the point of a lgpl. library gpl for an
application, does that make sense? I guess it is historical. Why not
switch to gpl pure.

mike

#4

This means that changes can be cherry picked out and included in libreoffice, no?

What changes?

Under the new OOo license there is no requirement for source code to be
available, much less sent up stream.

Which means that the best license for LibO to use is AGPL, precisely
because it is incompatible with the EULA that OOo will be distributed
under. (Unless you don't mind your LibO contributions being used in a
closed source, priority program that is distributed under a EULA on
slightly less restrictive than MSO2000 Enterprise Edition.)

Also, may i ask what is the point of a lgpl. library gpl for an application.

It allows the program to be distributed as closed source, without making
that fact immediately obvious.

jonathon
- --
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.

If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
requesting.

                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.

#5

toki a écrit :

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This means that changes can be cherry picked out and included in libreoffice, no?

What changes?

Under the new OOo license there is no requirement for source code to be
available, much less sent up stream.

Which means that the best license for LibO to use is AGPL, precisely
because it is incompatible with the EULA that OOo will be distributed
under. (Unless you don't mind your LibO contributions being used in a
closed source, priority program that is distributed under a EULA on
slightly less restrictive than MSO2000 Enterprise Edition.)

AGPL is a stricter version of GPL. It adds restrictions on Internet interactions.
Also note that Libreoffice's LGPL licensing is incompatible with the OOo license.

Also, may i ask what is the point of a lgpl. library gpl for an application.

LGPL now means _Lesser_ General Public License.

It allows the program to be distributed as closed source, without making
that fact immediately obvious.

Not quite. It allows the LGPL program to be distributed as a component of a closed source set of programs.
Any altered form of the LGPL program itself must also be LGPL (or GPL), and not closed source.

In practical terms, it means that Libreoffice can always be distributed by others along with closed source programs, so allowing a wider use of Libreoffice.
But if the code of Libreoffice itself is changed, and it is redistributed, the new program must have LGPL (or GPL) licensing, and the code source must be made available. So these changes would be available to enhance Libreoffice, if we wish.

Note that if any open source program is modified, but it is not redistributed, there is no obligation to release source code.

#6

2011.06.03 06:19, toki rašė:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This means that changes can be cherry picked out and included in libreoffice, no?

What changes?

Under the new OOo license there is no requirement for source code to be
available, much less sent up stream.

Which means that the best license for LibO to use is AGPL, precisely
because it is incompatible with the EULA that OOo will be distributed
under. (Unless you don't mind your LibO contributions being used in a
closed source, priority program that is distributed under a EULA on
slightly less restrictive than MSO2000 Enterprise Edition.)

What for? IANAL, but as far as I understand, Apache license allows *us* to use OOo's code, perhaps even relicensing it under LGPL/MPL. Meanwhile LGPL/MPL that *we* are using does *not* give OOo the similar freedom to relicense *our* code under Apache license. It's a one-way compatibility.

Also, may i ask what is the point of a lgpl. library gpl for an application.

It allows the program to be distributed as closed source, without making
that fact immediately obvious.

Not quite. Though MPL (which we are also using for new contributions) allows something like that to some extent. I personally don't think it's a bad thing.

Rimas

#7

AGPL is a stricter version of GPL. It adds restrictions on Internet interactions.

AGPL preserves the freedoms that GPL doesn't.

LGPL now means _Lesser_ General Public License.

I know what it means,. I also know how to take LGPL licensed software,
modify it, and distribute the resulting binary without the source code
used to create that binary, and remain in technical compliance with the
LGPL.

In practical terms, it means that Libreoffice can always be distributed

by others along with closed source programs, so allowing a wider use of
Libreoffice.

It also means that LibreOffice, or OOo, or whatever Apache renames it,
_if_ they decide to accept it, will also be providing support to those
distributors of repackaged LibO, or OOo. Distributors that may, but
based on historical practice, will not be providing source code for
their modifications.

jonathon
- --
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.

If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
requesting.

                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.

#8

to use OOo's code, perhaps even relicensing it under LGPL/MPL.

My point is that there will _not_ be any source code to use.

jonathon
- --
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.

If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
requesting.

                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.

#9

2011.06.03 18:52, toki rašė:

What for? IANAL, but as far as I understand, Apache license allows *us*
to use OOo's code, perhaps even relicensing it under LGPL/MPL.

My point is that there will _not_ be any source code to use.

From the text I quoted in previous message and you deleted, it seemed to me like your point was that OOo will just take and relicense LibO's code under some proprietary EULA.

Also:

My point is that there will _not_ be any source code to use.

The worst case scenario IMO would be that there is no _new_ source code to use, but IMO:
1) if old code is licensed under APL, this means we can relicense the existing OOo code we have under LGPL/MPL, so our whole product would be licensed consistently, which is good
2) I'm quite sure that no new code in OOo means the end of OOo, which means there is more room for both LibO and Lotus Symphony to grow. Why would that hurt?

Rimas

#10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This means that changes can be cherry picked out and included in libreoffice, no?

What changes?

I mean that libreoffice can take from the openoffice, if they make
improvements, libre office can use them, but not vica versus.

Under the new OOo license there is no requirement for source code to be
available, much less sent up stream.

I understand, that Is good for IBM, but not good for small contributors.

Which means that the best license for LibO to use is AGPL, precisely
because it is incompatible with the EULA that OOo will be distributed
under.

Sounds also good, sure. why not.

(Unless you don't mind your LibO contributions being used in a
closed source, priority program that is distributed under a EULA on
slightly less restrictive than MSO2000 Enterprise Edition.)

Also, may i ask what is the point of a lgpl. library gpl for an application.

It allows the program to be distributed as closed source, without making
that fact immediately obvious.

But why what that liceense chosen?