Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:33 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:44 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888)
To your other point, if someone wants a favor from IBM then I suspect that a courteous, well-reasoned request to an IBM email address might get greater consideration then rude sniping and demands via comments. Just saying.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:05 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
But ok. Let's put this another way. If I provided a patch that added a new document to the top level of the symphony svn tree, containing a list of files that the existing README implied were available under liberal terms and explicitly indicating that (barring accidental inclusion of third party code) these files could be redistributed under those terms, could that be merged?
Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:30 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888)
But if that is the root cause of your confusion, then I'll look into providing that list in Subversion.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:34 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:33 UTC (Fri) by malor (subscriber, #2973)
Ah, we finally get the explicit admission that this is being made difficult on purpose.
All you guys need to do is stick a README file in that directory, explicitly transferring the rights you have to it, to the rest of the community. You consistently refuse to understand this, professing ignorance, but the quoted sentence is the real reason.... you're actively uninterested in making life any easier for the competition.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:47 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888)
Downstream consumers of our code will benefit greater, after our source distributions have been carefully reviewed, voted on and released. That is how Apache works. We're not interested in slapping our license and brand on code, flipping it or acting as money launderers for the open source community. When we release code it means something.
Posted Jan 23, 2013 19:42 UTC (Wed) by juliank (subscriber, #45896)
Posted Jan 23, 2013 20:01 UTC (Wed) by malor (subscriber, #2973)
In other words, you're going to keep it to yourself as long as you possibly can, to try to damage LibreOffice. A simple README transferring your rights to the broader community would shut everyone up, but you refuse to do that, because you want the competitive advantage. And you're saying so, right here, a second time.
After your posts here, I think a lot less, a LOT less, of the Apache Foundation.
Posted Jan 23, 2013 23:28 UTC (Wed) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888)
No LibreOffice programmer has expressed interest in using this code, has said they lack permissions to use the code, or has even come to our mailing list to ask for clarification about what the license on these files is.
Please send me a link if you believe I am in error.
No one from Apache has ever said that the "broader community" does not have rights to use these files.
Posted Jan 24, 2013 16:35 UTC (Thu) by malor (subscriber, #2973)
Please send me a link if you believe I am in error.
Sure. Check https://lwn.net/Articles/532665/
That is some seriously disingenuous bullshit you're pulling there. "No programmer has expressed interest", when the official spokesperson for a competing project is complaining about it. The spokesperson! For the whole project!
And all you can do is whine about no actual coders coming to you, hat in hand, when their entire project is officially saying that you're withholding the code?
This is easy to fix, but you're not interested in fixing it. An attitude like that does not belong in open source. You should be ashamed of yourself. We're supposed to all be on the same side. If you want enemies, and to be able to put slimy bullshit over on your competition, while furiously polishing your tin halo, go back to proprietary development, where that kind of crap belongs.
Stop arguing with me and go fix this.
Posted Jan 24, 2013 18:15 UTC (Thu) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888)
1) Italo is not a programmer. He is the LO marketing lead.
2) His message is not an "official communication" from the project. It is just an ill-tempered post from him on a mailing list.
3) It was not a query, request for clarification, etc., to Apache. If he wants something, he knows where to go for it. So do you.
4) He is wrong on his assertions.
But other than weak grasp of facts and logic, your analysis is impeccable.
Posted Jan 25, 2013 1:43 UTC (Fri) by malor (subscriber, #2973)
Per Corbet, he's (an? the?) official spokesperson for the project, to wit:
The specific suspect in question is Italo Vignoli, a director of the Document Foundation and spokesperson for the LibreOffice project.
Stop wasting time arguing with me. The fact that you're still replying to me, instead of just fixing it, is yet more proof that you want to sling words and do your damndest to slow down the competition, not help the open source community.
You're only interested in helping if people line up and do exactly what you say, in exactly the way you say it, which means you don't really want to help at all, you're looking for excuses not to. ("They're not programmers! They didn't ask on the right list! They're asking behind *gasp* a paywall!")
All excuses, and all transparent bullshit.
Posted Jan 25, 2013 2:16 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888)
Difficult on purpose ???
Posted Jan 25, 2013 22:47 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433)
Why on earth should Rob make his life difficult, to give you an easy ride?
The paper trail is designed, by Apache, to make Apache's life easy. How on earth can you stand there and claim that it was designed to be "being made difficult on purpose", just because it doesn't make *your* life easier!
The whole point behind Open Source is that people do things FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT but don't make life difficult for other people on purpose. Everything here I see implies that Rob and Apache are doing exactly that - they are not doing things to make your life easier, true, but equally they are not actively hindering you.
If their failure to act is harming you, you need to persuade them that that failure is not in their interest, not just moan about why they should put themselves out to make your life easy.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds