You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de> on 2011/06/04 12:24:07 UTC
OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this
as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense.
Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org /
LibreOffice code legally usable within IBM Lotus Symphony is to use a
non-copyleft license such as ASL2.
That does not seem to be true:
I suppose IBM could make Lotus Symphony source code available under a
license which is compatible with LGPL3.
I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes
binaries available for free:
http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
So my question to IBM is:
Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if
only parts of it) ?
If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
If those questions have already been answered than forgive me, there are
a lot of mails to read regarding the OpenOffice.org / Apache Incubator
proposal ;-)
Cheers,
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
"Andreas Kuckartz" <A....@ping.de> wrote on 06/04/2011 06:24:07 AM:
>
> I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this
> as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense.
>
> Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org /
> LibreOffice code legally usable within IBM Lotus Symphony is to use a
> non-copyleft license such as ASL2.
>
A citation, please? I don't recall seeing such a statement made.
> That does not seem to be true:
> I suppose IBM could make Lotus Symphony source code available under a
> license which is compatible with LGPL3.
>
> I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes
> binaries available for free:
> http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
>
> So my question to IBM is:
> Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if
> only parts of it) ?
> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
>
We've already contributed work from Symphony to OpenOffice.org. For
example, we've done quite a bit of accessibility work that we contributed.
The TDF/LO developers are discussing how they might take this code from
OOo (under LGPL) and integrate it into LO:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice-accessibility-OpenOffice-and-LibreOffice-accessibility-td2443490.html
This is an example of one form of collaboration that we should continue to
enable and encourage.
The Symphony team is currently discussing what other features they are
interesting in contributing initially. I'll check to see if they have a
list they are able to share at this point. Obviously, as an Apache
project, this would be under the Apache 2.0 license.
But please remember, there is no guarantee that the Apache OpenOffice
project members will want all, or indeed any of our proposed
contributions. As you probably know, we have a radically different
approach to the user interface. It would be presumptive for me to assume
that this would necessarily be adopted by the community. But we're
willing to discuss this, along with other project members as we chart the
evolution of OpenOffice.
Regards,
-Rob
> If those questions have already been answered than forgive me, there are
> a lot of mails to read regarding the OpenOffice.org / Apache Incubator
> proposal ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>> Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
>>>
>>> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
>>>>> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
>>>> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
>>>> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
>>>> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
>
> The Apache model is more than just a license - it's a complete system
> developed around a community led development philosophy. No part can
> be easily replaced.
I've posted more detailed thoughts on this matter at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06529.html
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
>>
>> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>>>
>>>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
>>>> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
>>> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
>>> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
>>> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
The Apache model is more than just a license - it's a complete system
developed around a community led development philosophy. No part can
be easily replaced.
>> I'm not an expert in this but is seems to me that since you can derive a
>> copy left licensed product from an Apache licensed product but not the
>> other
>> way round, it is in fact logical to start with Apache if both are to be
>> considered.
(With GPLv3)
> No, those people will not join that project under Apache.
Volunteers make choices. Developers come and go. In the end, we have
to accept this. All that we can ask for is alignment and
understanding, and a clean separation of concerns.
Complete and sound systems are well known and understood for the GPL.
IMO creating a complete and sound system around the LGPL would be
non-trivial.
IMO the Apache model upstream flowing downstream into a pure GPLv3
ecosystem using distributed development based around the TDF would be
a reasonable place to start
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I'd be satisfied to merely not have the project's potential existence
> portrayed as a disease that must be eradicated from the face of the earth.
This type of rhetorical flourish does not lead to mutual cooperation.
Take it elsewhere.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/04/2011 09:10:05 AM:
>
>
> So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code
they
> own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of
view
> but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an
> Apache license doesn't have to. In that sense there is a need for LO
with a
> copyleft license. There can still be cooperation to try and make the
best
> out of that situation.
>
Exactly. As a prospective committer of Apache OpenOffice I'd love help
from all quarters and collaboration in all directions. But absent that,
I'd be satisfied to merely not have the project's potential existence
portrayed as a disease that must be eradicated from the face of the earth.
The existence of a thriving community around TDF/LO is an opportunity for
Apache OpenOffice. We've discussed some of the possible avenues for
collaboration. But the existence of TDF/LO is not a valid reason to
suggest that Apache OpenOffice should not exist, provided it meets
Apache-defined criteria for entering a podling. I don't hear anyone
denying the right of TDF/LO to exist, for that project to continue or even
to thrive. Let's make this respect mutual.
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 06/04/2011 09:40 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die.
Which is a possible consequence of any software...
How many times can we go around in circles? I agree with Ian. Accept
that there are two communities and move on either together or
separately, but quit debating/wishing that there should only be one
community.
-> richard
> Cheers,
> Andreas
> ---
>
> Am 04.06.2011 15:10, schrieb Ian Lynch:
>> 1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient
> support and
>> stagnates, TDF LO carry on developing what becomes the main used code
> base.
>> Or ApacheOOo attracts developers from TDF and it thrives and TDF dies. Or
>> both thrive as two separate projects in their own right.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>.
Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die.
Cheers,
Andreas
---
Am 04.06.2011 15:10, schrieb Ian Lynch:
> 1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo.
>
> ...
>
> Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient
support and
> stagnates, TDF LO carry on developing what becomes the main used code
base.
> Or ApacheOOo attracts developers from TDF and it thrives and TDF dies. Or
> both thrive as two separate projects in their own right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 4 June 2011 13:47, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
>
>> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>>
>>>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
>>>>
>>>> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
>>> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
>>> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
>>> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not an expert in this but is seems to me that since you can derive a
>> copy left licensed product from an Apache licensed product but not the
>> other
>> way round, it is in fact logical to start with Apache if both are to be
>> considered.
>>
>
> No, those people will not join that project under Apache.
So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code they
own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of view
but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an
Apache license doesn't have to. In that sense there is a need for LO with a
copyleft license. There can still be cooperation to try and make the best
out of that situation.
2 options -
1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo.
2. TDF/LO cooperate with ASF to keep two versions of the code but with
minimum divergence and maximum commonality given the licensing contstraints.
Personally I prefer option 2.
Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient support and
stagnates, TDF LO carry on developing what becomes the main used code base.
Or ApacheOOo attracts developers from TDF and it thrives and TDF dies. Or
both thrive as two separate projects in their own right.
Possible consequences of Option 2. There are versions of the code derived
from the Apache licensed version that are substantially technically the same
but at least one is licensed copy left and supported by those that believe
this license is the only one they can work with (TDF/LO)
Ok there are other possibilities too but I have discounted move everything
to LibreO or move everything to Apache because I can't see either of those
options being practically possible. I'd be happy to be proved wrong :-)
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>
>> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
>>> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
>> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
>> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
>> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
>>
>
> I'm not an expert in this but is seems to me that since you can derive a
> copy left licensed product from an Apache licensed product but not the other
> way round, it is in fact logical to start with Apache if both are to be
> considered.
No, those people will not join that project under Apache.
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz<A....@ping.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>
> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
>>>
>>
>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
>> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>>
>
> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
>
I'm not an expert in this but is seems to me that since you can derive a
copy left licensed product from an Apache licensed product but not the other
way round, it is in fact logical to start with Apache if both are to be
considered.
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 4 June 2011 16:54, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is
> > not a value judgement.
> >
> > Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way
> > round
> >
> > Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will not want to work
> on
> > non- CL code
> >
> > Fact: ASF will not change its license
> >
> > Given these it seems certain to me that there will be two projects. Its
> up
> > to the players to makes sure that they thrive rather than die. I believe
> we
> > can do this so let's just do it.
>
> There are a few reasons to not jump to this conclusion just yet, not
> the least of which is that the ASF has not even voted to accept this
> project for incubation. It is also possible that there are enough TDF
> people who are willing to accept the Apache License and would prefer
> that these codebases not further diverge.
>
Hm, I think there will always be sufficient who are philosophically in the
CopyLeft camp. That really means it's the balance that is not known. Ok if
that balance shifts too far to one side or another the other project is
likely to die but that is probably going to take time beyond the incubation
period to determine. If OOo doesn't make it through to the incubator I guess
TDF and LO will just carry on from where they are. In that case those that
feel strongly that is the best outcome won't want the vote to go in favour.
Since Ross said a good reason not to accept the code would be needed, the
only candidate I can see is that "it will effectively result in 2 projects".
That is a value judgement Apache members will have to decide but they might
well take the view that a more permissive license trumps 2 projects - well
they are Apache people so they must believe in the license :-)
It is this reasoning that leads me to the conclusions stated.
>
> That being said, if we do (however reluctantly) come to the point
> where we need to make the conclusion you described above, lets see if
> we can work together to produce a joint statement to that effect.
>
> In particular, lets put all past mistakes in what each of has said (or
> failed to say) publicly behind us.
>
I wholeheartedly agree. The people I have worked with at OOo and LO and Ross
I know from Apache, are all good people. Let's respect differences and show
what the community can do.
- Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is
> not a value judgement.
>
> Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way
> round
>
> Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will not want to work on
> non- CL code
>
> Fact: ASF will not change its license
>
> Given these it seems certain to me that there will be two projects. Its up
> to the players to makes sure that they thrive rather than die. I believe we
> can do this so let's just do it.
There are a few reasons to not jump to this conclusion just yet, not
the least of which is that the ASF has not even voted to accept this
project for incubation. It is also possible that there are enough TDF
people who are willing to accept the Apache License and would prefer
that these codebases not further diverge.
That being said, if we do (however reluctantly) come to the point
where we need to make the conclusion you described above, lets see if
we can work together to produce a joint statement to that effect.
In particular, lets put all past mistakes in what each of has said (or
failed to say) publicly behind us.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 4 June 2011 15:46, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>
> wrote:
> > Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
> >> While other choices may make sense depending on the
> >> specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
> >> that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.
> >
> > I do not know if that is a "valid perspective" or not, but I think that
> > the categorical statement ("necessary consequence") contained in it is
> > false.
> >
> > The license used for the Linux kernel certainly does not cast the widest
> > possible net but I do not see significant fragmentation, quite the
> > contrary. There is essentially one and the same kernel used by (almost)
> > all Linux distributions (with rather small modifications).
>
> Much of the Apache Software Foundation infrastructure is run on
> FreeBSD. OS/X is built upon a similar base.
>
> If we wish to join forces (and to be clear, that's my preferred
> option) it behoves us to enable the Darwins of the world. Alternately
> (and NOT my preferred option) lets decide that we are pursuing
> separate goals and find other ways to support each other.
>
> > (Generally: When a net is to wide it can get teared up.)
>
> The problem with all analogies is that they are fundamentally flawed. :-)
>
Yes, they are for Language graduates not technologists ;-)
There is clearly risk in any strategy to move forward but there is no point
in obfuscating the risk calculation by including constants as if they were
variables.
Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is
not a value judgement.
Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way
round
Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will not want to work on
non- CL code
Fact: ASF will not change its license
Given these it seems certain to me that there will be two projects. Its up
to the players to makes sure that they thrive rather than die. I believe we
can do this so let's just do it.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Andreas
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de> wrote:
> Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
>> While other choices may make sense depending on the
>> specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
>> that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.
>
> I do not know if that is a "valid perspective" or not, but I think that
> the categorical statement ("necessary consequence") contained in it is
> false.
>
> The license used for the Linux kernel certainly does not cast the widest
> possible net but I do not see significant fragmentation, quite the
> contrary. There is essentially one and the same kernel used by (almost)
> all Linux distributions (with rather small modifications).
Much of the Apache Software Foundation infrastructure is run on
FreeBSD. OS/X is built upon a similar base.
If we wish to join forces (and to be clear, that's my preferred
option) it behoves us to enable the Darwins of the world. Alternately
(and NOT my preferred option) lets decide that we are pursuing
separate goals and find other ways to support each other.
> (Generally: When a net is to wide it can get teared up.)
The problem with all analogies is that they are fundamentally flawed. :-)
> Cheers,
> Andreas
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>.
Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
> While other choices may make sense depending on the
> specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
> that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.
I do not know if that is a "valid perspective" or not, but I think that
the categorical statement ("necessary consequence") contained in it is
false.
The license used for the Linux kernel certainly does not cast the widest
possible net but I do not see significant fragmentation, quite the
contrary. There is essentially one and the same kernel used by (almost)
all Linux distributions (with rather small modifications).
(Generally: When a net is to wide it can get teared up.)
Cheers,
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Hi Sam,
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 16:00)
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>> Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, <A....@ping.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
>>>
>>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
>>> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>>
>> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
>> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
>> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
>> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
>
> This question can be looked at from multiple perspectives. I will
> start by acknowledging your perspective as a valid perspective. I
> will close by asking that you acknowledge mine in a likewise manner.
>
> In order to cast the widest possible net, it is important to pick a
> license that seeks to permit the widespread use of the code, being
> inclusive of both Free and proprietary software products alike.
In general yes. And the details of the licences providing that
inclusiveness, as well as if the assumption really holds, of course
depend on the specific situation.
Choosing a start that you know will bring you in conflict with a fast
maturing foundation, delivering a rewarded project, strongly backed and
enjoying support from the larger part of the old non-Oracle
OpenOffice.org community as well as a growing amount of free developers
... In this specific situation you take a big risk. Namely ... hmm, read
the other mails for that.
> I fully understand that that is just one possible criteria for a
> license choice. While other choices may make sense depending on the
> specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
> that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.
Yes, just wrote about that.
>
> Before proceeding, can I get you to acknowledge that as a valid perspective?
Well, it is above. But I'm not sure if further debate will bring us to a
point where you acknowledge that trying to find a common ground first
would have be useful - and that was my question a but further above.
Regards,
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz<A....@ping.de>
>> wrote:
>
>>> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
>>
>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
>> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>
> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
This question can be looked at from multiple perspectives. I will
start by acknowledging your perspective as a valid perspective. I
will close by asking that you acknowledge mine in a likewise manner.
In order to cast the widest possible net, it is important to pick a
license that seeks to permit the widespread use of the code, being
inclusive of both Free and proprietary software products alike.
I fully understand that that is just one possible criteria for a
license choice. While other choices may make sense depending on the
specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.
Before proceeding, can I get you to acknowledge that as a valid perspective?
> Cor
>
> --
> - http://nl.libreoffice.org
> - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz<A....@ping.de> wrote:
>> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
>
> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting
with the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>.
The reason for my questions is that I hope that answers might in some
way potentially help to avoid separate code bases for OpenOffice.org /
LibreOffice or at least make it possible to avoid that for parts of the
code.
Some kind of reasonable relation between Lotus Symphony and
Openoffice.org / LibreOffice obviously is needed.
***
My opinion is that some kind of copyleft license might be better suited
for this type of software than a non-copyleft license. The difference
between libraries, frameworks etc. which are mostly used by developers
and end user applications might be decisive.
I am aware of great existing proprietary products usable by end users
built using software produced in ASF projects but I can not point to any
ASF application which is easily usable by non-developer end users (I
would be glad to be corrected ;-). Maybe that has something to do with
the license.
At the same time I think that a strong community around a project is
(regularly) more important than the license used by it.
In other words: perhaps there are parts of OpenOffice.org for which the
Apache License 2 is more appropriate than it is for other parts.
Cheers,
Andreas
---
Am 04.06.2011 13:35, schrieb Sam Ruby:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>
wrote:
>
>> > If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
Am 04.06.2011 13:35, schrieb Sam Ruby:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>
wrote:
>>
>> So my question to IBM is:
>> Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if
>> only parts of it) ?
>
> While I work for IBM, I don't work for that part of IBM. That being
> said, I do believe that we already have an answer to that question.
> IBM has indicated that they are willing to contribute to a project
> made available under the Apache License, Version 2.0, which is a
> recognized Open Source license. Some of these contributions will be
> derived from the current IBM Lotus Symphony offering.
>
> As you are undoubtedly aware, IBM contributes to a number of projects,
> including Linux. Contributions to each project are made consistent
> with the license terms of that project.
>
>> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
>
> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>
> - Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de> wrote:
>
> So my question to IBM is:
> Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if
> only parts of it) ?
While I work for IBM, I don't work for that part of IBM. That being
said, I do believe that we already have an answer to that question.
IBM has indicated that they are willing to contribute to a project
made available under the Apache License, Version 2.0, which is a
recognized Open Source license. Some of these contributions will be
derived from the current IBM Lotus Symphony offering.
As you are undoubtedly aware, IBM contributes to a number of projects,
including Linux. Contributions to each project are made consistent
with the license terms of that project.
> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
not an appropriate choice in this situation?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote on 06/04/2011 07:53:54 AM:
> Andreas,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>
wrote:
> > I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but
makes
> > binaries available for free:
> > http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
> >
>
> Although you can download IBM Lotus Symphony for free it is still
> licensed as an IBM commercial product using a particular license (ILAN
> [1]). Besides that IBM Lotus Symphony is part of IBM LotusLive [2] so
> the product is certainly a bit more than just the Eclipse-based client
> (actually it uses a variation of Eclipse called IBM Lotus Expeditor
> [3]) that one can download for free.
>
> [1] http://www-03.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf/viewbla/
> [2] https://www.lotuslive.com/
> [3] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Expeditor
>
Since this was an IBM-directed question, I'm wearing my IBM hat here.
LotusLive Symphony only shares the Symphony brand. It is a set of
web-based collaborative editors. It is not derived from the
OpenOffice.org code. But since many customers want heterogenous access to
desktop and cloud editors, we want to maintain strength in both.
But you are correct in saying that we've been using the core
OpenOffice/Symphony code in several ways, as standalone editors, as
imbedded in Expeditor, the related embedded version in Notes, etc. I'd
like to see the Apache OpenOffice project enable this type of embedding be
more prevalent. It is end-user facing, obviously, but embedded in other
applications, as well as standalone. I think this is something that is
uniquely enabled by open source.
We give away the free version, as mentioned. We also sell support and
bundle it with proprietary products. We also have partnerships with
laptop vendors to pre-load Symphony.
I'm not saying this to sell IBM's commercial business. But I did want to
demonstrate that we have a strong business interest in seeing this project
thrive. Our business interests are aligned with the success of this
project.
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Posted by dsh <da...@googlemail.com>.
Andreas,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de> wrote:
> I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes
> binaries available for free:
> http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
>
Although you can download IBM Lotus Symphony for free it is still
licensed as an IBM commercial product using a particular license (ILAN
[1]). Besides that IBM Lotus Symphony is part of IBM LotusLive [2] so
the product is certainly a bit more than just the Eclipse-based client
(actually it uses a variation of Eclipse called IBM Lotus Expeditor
[3]) that one can download for free.
[1] http://www-03.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf/viewbla/
[2] https://www.lotuslive.com/
[3] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Expeditor
Cheers
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org