You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org> on 2015/01/29 19:19:38 UTC
[DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
I didn't even know about this page, <http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it.
Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is.
The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther.
I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period.
SUGGESTION
1. Remove the page altogether.
2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available.
2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.)
2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page.
2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there.
This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models.
Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License?
-- Dennis E. Hamilton
orcmid@apache.org
dennis.hamilton@acm.org +1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary of open-source goodness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Posted by jonathon <to...@gmail.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 29/01/15 18:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an
Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as
if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds.
This is one of six or so CYA pages on the OpenOffice site.
The major reason for their existence, is to point ambulance chasers at,
when they are convinced that their client is utterly blameless in the
reported PICNIC.
It would be more appropriate for those CYA pages to be part of the The
Apache Software Foundation's official pages, than those of specific
projects, but, until the board decides that officially sanctioned pages
are needed, then individual projects need to address those issues.
They obviously need to rewritten, to be sound less alarming, and
pointless to people who understand neither their significance, nor
raison d'être.
This specific page is relevant to a broad swatch on potential adopters,
because it outlines, albeit using FUD-orientated scenarios, potential
outcomes of the various types of licenses, if they are not adhered to.
One of the other CYA pages addresses a very specific scenario, that is
extremely uncommon, but nonetheless emphasizes the importance of doing
due diligence on all of the software the organization uses.
(I don't remember the URL, and neither Baidu nor DDG seem to list it.)
jonathon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=lwio
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com>.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> I didn't even know about this page, <http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it.
>
> Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is.
>
It is useful to those who have an interest and concern about license
compliance. That's the point, to have a keyword-rich page that
places well in search results for those potential users who are
concerned specifically with compliance risk.
intended purpose.
Note: This is how all the "why" pages are structured. They are
single topic pages that delve into a specific reason why someone might
be interested in OpenOffice. So even if they have no idea that
OpenOffice exists, they will find this page when they search for a
related concern, e.g., ODF, End of Life of Office 2003, free software
for new computers, and, yes, cost of compliance.
You, or anyone else might not care about cost of compliance, or for
that matter, End Of Life of Office 2003. That's fine. This page is
not intended for you. The way to evaluate it is from the perspective
of someone who is researching this topic, the person for whom this is
a topic of interest. This is an important SEO technique, to make it
possible for those who don't even know that OpenOffice exists, but who
have a problem that we solve, to find our website.
The fact that these are genuine, real-world concerns can be seen from
their coverage in the New York Times and in industry press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/business/26ping.html?_r=2&
http://www.industryweek.com/software-amp-systems/cost-open-source-licensing-compliance
> The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther.
>
Similarly, the ASF does not have a position on public sector
procurement, upgrades to Office 2003 or what file format someone
should use. On none of these questions does the ASF have an official
stance. However, these are issues that are of interest to many, and
for which AOO has a good answer, so it is appropriate to have pages
that explain why someone with these concerns might prefer AOO.
Finally, note that we do not place these "why" pages prominently in
our blog or the front page of the website. The main intent is to to
be found by someone searching for keywords related to these topics.
It is not intended as as trollbait for the FSF.
Regards,
-Rob
> I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period.
>
> SUGGESTION
>
> 1. Remove the page altogether.
>
> 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available.
>
> 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.)
>
> 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page.
>
> 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there.
>
> This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models.
>
> Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License?
>
> -- Dennis E. Hamilton
> orcmid@apache.org
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org +1-206-779-9430
> https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>
> PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary of open-source goodness.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
I did look around some more.
The page in question is only listed from the sidebar of the "why" section, under "More Reasons," <http://www.openoffice.org/why/>. I think that is a far stretch from reasons AOO is valuable to use and I remain concerned about that (and whatever all of the localizations say).
The Office 2013 end-of-life statement is now dated, April 2014 now being behind us. That page suggests an opportunity, that's fine. It talks about migration, and that's important. It's a good place to link to something about what questions to have answered in having migration work; that doesn't have to be there. There are some places on the New Computers and on the ODF page that could be updated and I do worry about giving the impression that interoperability is seamless in what is not said.
Those matters are different than the concerns that arise over "Compliant Costs."
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 10:20
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
I didn't even know about this page, <http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it.
Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is.
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 01/30/2015 01:32 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> I didn't even know about this page,<http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it.
>>
>> Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is.
>>
>> The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther.
>>
>> I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period.
>>
>
> I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some
> interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open
> source software and the different open source licenses.
>
> It can be seen as background information.
>
> In the context of the "why" page it is dos no harm and just provides
> some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse
> reading.
>
> If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of
> other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people
> don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here.
>
> We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I
> hope we can and will concentrate on these important things.
+1
AFAIK only one person has mentioned this and only indirectly by useing
some words as quote. Since when is this webpage online? SVN tells us Dev
2012. But I haven't looked since when which text parts are online. Now
we have one feedback of just a little part of the webpage.
It's just another try to go for a fight of license variantes.
Keep the text as it is, remove typos or adjust the wording if someone
get offended personally. But I don't see the need to change the text
because someone don't like it. Or remove the webpage entirely which
would in IMHO b*shit.
My 2 ct.
Marcus
>> SUGGESTION
>>
>> 1. Remove the page altogether.
>>
>> 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available.
>>
>> 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.)
>>
>> 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page.
>>
>> 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there.
>>
>> This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models.
>>
>> Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License?
>>
>> -- Dennis E. Hamilton
>> orcmid@apache.org
>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org +1-206-779-9430
>> https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
>> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>>
>> PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary of open-source goodness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> I didn't even know about this page, <http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it.
>>
>> Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is.
>>
>> The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther.
>>
>> I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period.
>>
>
> I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some
> interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open
> source software and the different open source licenses.
>
> It can be seen as background information.
>
> In the context of the "why" page it is dos no harm and just provides
> some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse
> reading.
>
IMHO it should not be considered unusual for an Apache project to have
a page that explains why it thinks that the license that is mandatory
for all Apache releases has some specific benefits over the licenses
that are forbidden in all Apache releases. It would be odd if we
could not make that argument.
Regards,
-Rob
> If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of
> other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people
> don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here.
>
> We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I
> hope we can and will concentrate on these important things.
>
> Juergen
>
>
>> SUGGESTION
>>
>> 1. Remove the page altogether.
>>
>> 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available.
>>
>> 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.)
>>
>> 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page.
>>
>> 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there.
>>
>> This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models.
>>
>> Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License?
>>
>> -- Dennis E. Hamilton
>> orcmid@apache.org
>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org +1-206-779-9430
>> https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
>> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>>
>> PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary of open-source goodness.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 01/30/2015 01:32 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> I didn't even know about this page,<http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it.
>>
>> Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is.
>>
>> The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther.
>>
>> I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period.
>>
>
> I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some
> interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open
> source software and the different open source licenses.
>
> It can be seen as background information.
>
> In the context of the "why" page it is dos no harm and just provides
> some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse
> reading.
>
> If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of
> other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people
> don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here.
>
> We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I
> hope we can and will concentrate on these important things.
+1
AFAIK only one person has mentioned this and only indirectly by useing
some words as quote. Since when is this webpage online? SVN tells us Dev
2012. But I haven't looked since when which text parts are online. Now
we have one feedback of just a little part of the webpage.
It's just another try to go for a fight of license variantes.
Keep the text as it is, remove typos or adjust the wording if someone
get offended personally. But I don't see the need to change the text
because someone don't like it. Or remove the webpage entirely which
would in IMHO b*shit.
My 2 ct.
Marcus
>> SUGGESTION
>>
>> 1. Remove the page altogether.
>>
>> 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available.
>>
>> 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.)
>>
>> 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page.
>>
>> 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there.
>>
>> This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models.
>>
>> Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License?
>>
>> -- Dennis E. Hamilton
>> orcmid@apache.org
>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org +1-206-779-9430
>> https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
>> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>>
>> PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary of open-source goodness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I didn't even know about this page, <http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it.
>
> Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is.
>
> The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther.
>
> I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period.
>
I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some
interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open
source software and the different open source licenses.
It can be seen as background information.
In the context of the "why" page it is dos no harm and just provides
some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse
reading.
If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of
other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people
don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here.
We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I
hope we can and will concentrate on these important things.
Juergen
> SUGGESTION
>
> 1. Remove the page altogether.
>
> 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available.
>
> 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.)
>
> 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page.
>
> 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there.
>
> This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models.
>
> Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License?
>
> -- Dennis E. Hamilton
> orcmid@apache.org
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org +1-206-779-9430
> https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>
> PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary of open-source goodness.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 01/29/2015 10:19 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I didn't even know about this page,
> <http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html>, until I saw an
> update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and
> didn't think much about it.
>
> Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I
> agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the
> perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in
> use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more
> straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is
> within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out
> how over-reaching this page is.
>
> The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as
> an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized
> interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various
> kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should
> have alerted me farther.
>
> I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't
> recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in
> that period.
It does seem that this page would be applicable to ALL of the ASF, so in
that sense it is not specific to OpenOffice, but I don't see it as harmful.
IMO, there are some parts of the first section that could be removed
without damaging the flow into the second section. And maybe a bit of
rewording to the second section. But on balance, I think it does serve a
useful purpose, whether it directly pertains to OpenOffice or not.
>
> SUGGESTION
>
> 1. Remove the page altogether.
>
> 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already
> adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice
> binaries that the project makes available.
>
> 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and
> that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the
> binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about
> that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from
> time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not
> already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this
> could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the
> broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am
> making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the
> orientation.)
This is covered in our distribution
page...http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/
Should that be linked from the page in question.
>
> 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the
> source code is always available from the Project. That source code
> is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's
> own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source
> licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a
> why_develop page.
>
> 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions
> of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be
> mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any
> deep-dive details from there.
>
> This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an
> open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not
> ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the
> circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing
> models.
Well, OK, maybe we need a better "umbrellla" page to cover some of these
concerns in some way.
>
> Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide
> no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of
> AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims
> of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the
> Disclaimer in the License?
??? not sure what you think is needed in this respect. These situations
arise on a regular basis by the way. We've tried to cover some of this
in the distribution page and in our download page...but maybe both of
these areas need more visibility.
>
> -- Dennis E. Hamilton orcmid@apache.org dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>
> PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be
> addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's
> war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most
> of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of
> relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them,
> whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the
> distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work.
> Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing
> open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the
> carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that
> has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary
> of open-source goodness.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"An old horse for a long, hard road,
a young pony for a quick ride."
-- Texas Bix Bender
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org