OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

[Posted May 10, 2010 by corbet]

From:		"Charles-H. Schulz" <charles-h.schulz-AT-laposte.net>
To:		announce-AT-openoffice.org
Subject:		[ooo-announce] OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF
Date:		Sun, 9 May 2010 16:40:58 +0200
Message-ID:		<20100509164058.07be9fb5@laposte.net>

OpenOffice.org is one of the most popular products of the FOSS (Free/Open
Source) community, and for many millions of people it is their first
experience of FOSS. Key to OpenOffice.org's success has been its ability
to compete openly and freely with competitors on any platform, and
demonstrate that FOSS is a better choice.

Uniquely among leading office suites, OpenOffice.org provides a mechanism
for developers to build and release "extensions" to provide additional
features. Extensions can be added and removed at will by users, giving
them the freedom to tailor their own copy of OpenOffice.org to do what
they need to do. The OpenOffice.org Community has created a common
repository where users can select and download extensions.

The OpenOffice.org Community Council has been asked by the FSF to give the
FSF an effective veto over which extensions should be permitted to appear
in this repository. The Community Council has felt unable to do this. We
believe passionately that FOSS delivers better software - including
extensions, but that users must be free to make the comparison and reach
their own conclusion.

It is a fact that the vast majority of our users currently run
OpenOffice.org on a proprietary operating system, alongside other
proprietary software. We respect their choice, and believe the best way to
influence them to change is by delivering high quality FOSS software that
meets their needs.

The OpenOffice.org Community Council regrets that the FSF was unable to
accept our compromise proposals for a more clearly signposted extensions
repository. We believe the creation of an alternative repository will
cause confusion and will lead to a poorer experience for users. However,
we are more than happy to work with the FSF to encourage FOSS developers
to address areas where proprietary only solutions exist.

The OpenOffice.org Community Council
http://council.openoffice.org

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 10, 2010 13:31 UTC (Mon) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] (1 responses)

Is there a pointer to the "compromise proposals for a more clearly signposted extensions repository" the council proposed?

How would a repository of Free Software extensions for OpenOffice cause confusion? It is pretty clear what people want that will be using the FSF repository IMHO.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 10, 2010 14:40 UTC (Mon) by Wummel (guest, #7591) [Link]

I'd also like to see their compromise proposal, since I do not really understand what "signposted" should mean in this context.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 14:15 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (16 responses)

> asked by the FSF to give the FSF an effective veto over

I really doubt that.

I wonder if the OO.o-CC is trying to make FSF's request seem unreasonable by claiming a "veto request" based on that FSF both is the author of the free software definition and asks OO.o to use only free software (as defined).

The obvious flaws in twisting this situation into a "veto request" claim are that, firstly, FSF isn't the only group that recognises the free software definition (Debian has something very similar, as does OSI, and lots of distros and projects recognise FSF's or the similar definitions), and secondly, FSF doesn't change the definition in anything but very minor ways, so it's not like FSF will be making unpredictable decisions about current or future OO.o extensions.

Also, why is a lack of FSF-endorsement a reason to cancel their own "more clearly signposted extensions" proposal?

Hopefully some distros will use FSF's extension list.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 14:45 UTC (Mon) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link] (6 responses)

Also, why is a lack of FSF-endorsement a reason to cancel their own "more clearly signposted extensions" proposal?

My gut feeling is that it's because OO.o doesn't really want to implement that proposal; it was a suggested compromise with the FSF to head off this "alternative repository" plan, but not something they care to do on their own. It's similar to the Mozilla.org situation: regardless of their market share among Linux users, the majority of their overall userbase is running Windows, and those users by-and-large have little to no interest in "Free software" beyond it being gratis. Among that portion of the userbase, splitting the repository between Free and non-Free (in the FSF sense) is going to add layers of confusion without adding useful (to them) meaning.

Note: the above is my own gut impression drawn from reading the two articles on LWN; I'm not subscribed to any OO.o mailing lists and have no knowledge of their actual thought processes.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 14:52 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] (5 responses)

Is there a simple way for me (as a user) to see the licenses of all the extensions?

Is it simple for me to only install free ones?

This does not require a separate repository. It technically only requires a bit of extra meta data.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 15:18 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (4 responses)

Yes.

On the extensions site:
http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/

Every extension lists the license category (Opensource/Freeware/Shareware/Commercial).

And you can trivially filter by that category, too.
Click "By License" on the left, select "Is one of" "Opensource", and then Submit.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 15:26 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

The metadata should include the precise license and not just a declaration of "open source". Some of the OSI approved licenses such as the first version of artistic license are problematic and are effectively considered non-free.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 11, 2010 4:04 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (1 responses)

I actually thought it was a rather clever idea to not bother with the specifics at the top level. To end users (who the site is geared towards), any Open Source license is essentially equivalent: the software is freely usable for any purpose and the source code is available to help facilitate such use.

The rest of the details are mainly only applicable to those who want to distribute the software (or modified versions of the software) themselves.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 11, 2010 7:42 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Pretty much no end user outside the small crowd cares about "open source" either. They care about whether the extension is available for free or not. Open source, Free software and licensing details are for the rest of us.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 15:27 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Which is great for us freedom nerds, but says nothing meaningful to the general public.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 17:14 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (8 responses)

I see what the FSF is doing as asking for exactly that Veto power.

the FSF definitions of freedom has changed over time (see the arguments that took place over GPLv2 vs GPLv3), even though the FSF claims the spirit hasn't changed there is no dispute that the letter has changed.

then when you add in things like the wikipedia exception that they granted, it's clear that the FSF is flexible in what they will do as long as it furthers their agenda.

agreeing to follow their rules, with them free to redefine said rules at any time is agreeing to give them veto power in fact if not in name.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 18:36 UTC (Mon) by BeS (guest, #43108) [Link]

>the FSF definitions of freedom has changed over time (see the arguments that took place over GPLv2 vs GPLv3), even though the FSF claims the spirit hasn't changed there is no dispute that the letter has changed.

The GPL is a Free Software license, not the Free Software definition. The Free Software definition can be read here and it hasn't changed for more than two decades.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 18:59 UTC (Mon) by dbruce (guest, #57948) [Link] (2 responses)

"Veto power" is way too strong and inflammatory a term to describe the FSF's request. The FSF has no control over what OO.o does, so they would not have "veto power" in any conceivable scenario. They are simply doing what they always do - advocate that organizations in the greater Free/Open software sphere not endorse or support non-Free software. It is just like their long-standing criticism of Debian's non-free repository.

Really, if the FSF request is to take place, OO.o has to voluntarily agree to it. There isn't any "vetoing" involved.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 11, 2010 1:33 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

the FSF is asking for OO.o to agree ahead of time to comply with the FSF decisions to be made later.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 11, 2010 6:06 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

The criteria being requested by FSF are the standard criteria of the free software / open-source software community.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 19:43 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

Wikipedia exception was added because Wikipedia wanted to move away from GNU FDL to CC-BY-SA. I don't see how you can claim FSF did it only to promote their agenda. Can you explain?

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 11, 2010 1:36 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

If you had asked anyone 5 years ago if the FSF would ever release a license with an exception in it tailored specifically to allow someone to change away from that license to a non FSF license, you would have been laughed out of town. Bu making this change the FSF avoided a major dispute/confrontation over the license, which very much is in their best interest.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 11, 2010 7:44 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

By this rationale, there is no such thing as a unselfish act. Everything we do is to promote our own agenda. Whether other's laugh at a completely plausible scenario or not should not affect FSF's actions in any way. FSF did the right thing here. They should be applauded.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 11, 2010 21:47 UTC (Tue) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]

OOo has already decided that the code they distribute as part of the actual OOo distribution must follow particular, free, licensing rules. If applying some different-in-detail but similar-in-spirit rules to the extension repository is "giving veto power to the FSF", then they've already done it for their core codebase.

More seriously, it sounds to me like the FSF would be perfectly happy if OOo said "we've decided that extensions in our extensions repository must be licensed in a way compatible with OSI guidelines, and we'll be the judge of what that means in edge cases", or something like that. Veto power would be if the FSF insisted that they had to be the one's judging whether each extension was acceptable.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 10, 2010 20:24 UTC (Mon) by Fats (guest, #14882) [Link] (13 responses)

I fully agree with the OpenOffice decision. OpenOffice users are mostly grown up people who can decide for themselves which extensions to use.

I don't believe in FSF freedom,
Staf.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 10, 2010 20:57 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (5 responses)

When I buy a car, I look for the hood being welded shut. If the dealer can't do it, it ain't worth doing.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 10, 2010 21:15 UTC (Mon) by Fats (guest, #14882) [Link] (4 responses)

Don't get fully where you want to get at. But matter of fact is that for most modern cars you need special, proprietary equipment to do anything more than changing oil. This hasn't stopped me from buying a Honday Civic Hybrid.

greets,
Staf.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 10, 2010 21:50 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (3 responses)

"Don't get fully where you want to get at."

I suspect as much.

"But matter of fact is that for most modern cars you need special, proprietary equipment to do anything more than changing oil. This hasn't stopped me from buying a Honday Civic Hybrid."

Not really. Certainly, the computer parts are very proprietar, but there are a very large number of things that you can do on your own or get a third party (known colloquially as a "mechanic"). And this ignores the point that mechanics can also get the proprietary equipment to fix the cars. Not just the dealers, which is part of the freedom you seem to disregard.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 10, 2010 21:53 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (2 responses)

(or you can buy them, if you have the cash).

In addition, if there were a car in which I could deal with the firmware myself (or get a mechanic to deal with) I'd buy it over the competition (provided, of course, it actually does the job of being a car). Freedom is a (super) feature, really.

I can't (yet) get user-serviceable (or computer-mechanic serviceable) firmware for 100% of my computers yet either. That doesn't imply that I don't want it.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 11, 2010 6:28 UTC (Tue) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] (1 responses)

(or you can buy them, if you have the cash).

Actually, no. There's a nice lurk where they sell only to those with certification from manufacturer-run training courses. That way there's a limited supply of equipment (and so higher charges) and the manufacturer gets training revenue too.

There's quite a desire for third-party diagnosis equipment, mainly from independent mechanics not wishing to purchase equipment for each manufacturers' vehicles they service. Of course the manufacturers are very opposed to this equipment and are using trade secrets, patents and DRM in response. The situation is widely seen as a fine illustration of market failure assisted by "intellectual property".

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 11, 2010 12:02 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

Thanks for the info!

Hooray for DRM and proprietary software!

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 10, 2010 21:54 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (6 responses)

Perhaps we're going at this the wrong way. What freedoms that the FSF espouses don't you believe in, specifically?

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 11, 2010 17:46 UTC (Tue) by Fats (guest, #14882) [Link] (5 responses)

Google for flurbage and Eric S. Raymond and you'll know in what freedom I believe in.

The FSF Freedom I don't believe in is connecting ethics with distribution of a bunch of zeros and ones. IMO there are more important problems in the world that are unethical that don't get solved. I would consider it selfish from myself that I demand everyone who gives me some binary code to also give me the source code. Analog, I am fine with master chefs not providing their recipes for their dishes or car manufacturers not giving their blue prints of their car engines.
The FSF freedom I don't believe in is that FSF should decide which plugins openoffice.org may provide to their users.

I do believe in choice though, e.g. that people may choose to only use software following the FSF mantra; that people may choose to only buy a car with open firmware; that people may choose to only install openoffice.org plugins with a certain license. So in that respect I (partly) agree with FSF that current IP laws and software lock-in are limiting choice.

greets,
Staf.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 11, 2010 18:02 UTC (Tue) by Fats (guest, #14882) [Link]

It has to be flerbage, sorry.
Staf.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 12, 2010 12:59 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

The FSF freedom I don't believe in is that FSF should decide which plugins openoffice.org may provide to their users.

But the FSF never asked for that, did it?

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 12, 2010 16:34 UTC (Wed) by Fats (guest, #14882) [Link]

From the article: "The OpenOffice.org Community Council has been asked by the FSF to give the
FSF an effective veto over which extensions should be permitted to appear in this repository."
Probably FSF asked to only provide extensions with a license approved by FSF.

greets,
Staf.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 12, 2010 13:37 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (1 responses)

> there are more important problems

This is an interesting issue. It boils down to, avoiding nuclear war is more important than getting the chocolate dessert taken off the menu of the school where my niece goes, so I should completely ignore the latter and work on the former.

OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Posted May 12, 2010 17:30 UTC (Wed) by Fats (guest, #14882) [Link]

You have a point. In the end, I don't see the existence of non-FSF free software as a problem as long as people have a choice. So I also don't see a moral obligation for people to only produce FSF free software. This with or without existance of other problems.

greets,
Staf.