> But they're not keeping proprietary Symphony, they've just freed the lot. So, once again - what's the need to insist on an Apache licensed project?
I think the answer at this point is perfectly clear. Rob's reluctance to even discuss the origins of the decision to go with Apache over other projects makes the intent even more explicit.
They release OOo under Apache so that proprietary forks can be made. Then they release Symphony under the Apache license so that proprietary forks of their proprietary application can be made. This is for one reason and one reason only.
Only a proprietary fork can contain a back door that can be used for spying on users. Who would want to read all Symphony ODT documents badly enough for super-secret meetings with IBM to start all these wheels a-turning?