You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> on 2011/06/10 17:57:48 UTC
FSF Statement on OpenOffice.org's move to Apache
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Volker Merschmann
<me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> Some fundamental comments about the license have been written down by
> the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice
That's worthy of a new subject line.
While the first line of the first paragraph is inaccurate (we haven't
even had a vote yet), overall, it appears to be a balanced piece.
Providing clear licensing information on extensions is certainly an
area for improvement.
> Volker
>
> --
> Volker Merschmann
> Member of The Document Foundation
> http://www.documentfoundation.org
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: FSF Statement on OpenOffice.org's move to Apache
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Andrew Rist wrote:
> I would also point out that this is not a case of moving from Copy Left
> to Permissive licensing. In this case, the code base is moving from
> dual-licensing (Copy Left and Proprietary) to Permissive.
I made the same point elsewhere. Also, while I appreciate clarification of licensing, the actual removal of non-freely licensed plug-ins hardly increases the freedom of the end-user. It is like banning the use of nvidia drivers for licensing purity.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: FSF Statement on OpenOffice.org's move to Apache
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Volker Merschmann
> <me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Some fundamental comments about the license have been written down by
>> the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice
> That's worthy of a new subject line.
>
> While the first line of the first paragraph is inaccurate (we haven't
> even had a vote yet), overall, it appears to be a balanced piece.
> Providing clear licensing information on extensions is certainly an
> area for improvement.
>
I would also point out that this is not a case of moving from Copy Left
to Permissive licensing.
In this case, the code base is moving from dual-licensing (Copy Left
and Proprietary) to Permissive.
This means that the use of the code under open source license will
widen, and everyone will share the same license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org