Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 17:25 UTC (Wed) by donbarry (guest, #10485)
Parent article: Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

We are beginning to see the strategic use of software foundations, not as
doting and caring parents, but as separate and incompatible fiefs used to divide -- and hopefully -- conquer. Oracle has pioneered this, first with
their proposed donation of their fork of the Hudson codebase (after
forcing the authors of the code to rename through trademark threats) to
Eclipse -- a foundation whose procedural and legal overhead is of no appeal
to the Hudson authors. The intentional result is the "appearance" of
distance by Oracle, but the proposed stewardship of the code primarily
by Oracle's partners, while keeping the authors at a distance and making
them appear as the bad guys (they are apparently partnering with SPI,
a better match to their style). Donating code that you do not morally
own (and relicensing it to boot -- from MIT to EPL) should incite the
contempt of every free software partisan.

In this case, Oracle actually does morally own a significant chunk of
the Open/Libreoffice codebase, and it is available under
free software, though non-copyleft licenses. They do have the
moral right to transition significant blocks (though not all) of the
codebase to an Apache license. But once again, Oracle is using
foundations eager to expand mindshare and codebases as pawns in this
game of kings to position themselves against existing communities.

Apache lessens itself by being Oracle's pawn -- one cannot say unwitting,
because Apache has had bitter lessons of late in the faithlessness and
arrogance of Oracle. Oracle should not be praised for this move, since
it is clearly in bad faith. IBM should also be condemned for encouraging
an adaptation that intentionally leads communities divided. Their move,
clearly, is to defend against any potential future evolution of
Libreoffice that includes copyleft. The communities be damned.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 17:36 UTC (Wed) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (38 responses)

Hmm, I don't really get it.

From a distant observers POV it looks like Oracle tried to control OO.o too much and so got a fork in LibreOffice.
Now that LibreOffice seems to have all the traction Oracle wants to ??relicense to ASL?? OO.o and give it to the ASF?
From my fairly uninformed position it looks like LibreOffice has archieved even more than they set out to and should just close shop and start to work on ASF OO.o.

Are there really that many good reasons not to? Or was MarkS right and there is a whole different spin to this whole thing?

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 17:52 UTC (Wed) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link]

"...it looks like LibreOffice has archieved even more than they set out to and should just close shop and start to work on ASF OO.o..."

I think that was Oracle's intent; to take the wind out of LibreOffice sails though I think it is to late for that. In my view Oracle has made themselves untrustworthy to be any type of steward for non-FOSS code.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 17:59 UTC (Wed) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link] (35 responses)

LibreOffice already had the code. Oracle's OpenOffice.org was open source after all. Nothing really changed, except that many parts (but not the go-oo parts) of the LibreOffice source code will now have an Apache license, in addition to the LGPL license.

If LibreOffice closes up shop, and continue with ASF OOo, they would have to throw away the code that is LGPL-only, and set development back a few years.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 18:20 UTC (Wed) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (21 responses)

Is that really true? I think most of the LGPL authors are still alive and can be asked to relicense.

I am not sure that the DF (RH, Novell, Canonical etc) can keep up with ASF, Oracle, IBM etc in the long run.
Maybe just look at how things are evolving and do the wise thing in the end and that may be to relicense and claim victory. If the ASF handles OO.o like all their other projects there isn't a real reason to do your own thing IMO.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 18:45 UTC (Wed) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link] (1 responses)

Why would they bother to relicense to ASL?

The only people who are interested in the code under that license at this point are IBM, and that's only so they can ship their proprietary version "Symphony". Why are other people going to give them a leg-up to do that?

Given that Oracle have basically shut up shop, IBM have promised that the Symphony people would be "more active" and the active hackers are at LibreOffice, I think it's the other way around: I don't see how the ASF project can possibly keep up with LibreOffice, which has a head start as well.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 21:01 UTC (Wed) by jhoger (guest, #33302) [Link]

Well IBM could pay the authors of those bits to relicense... stranger things have happened.

This is just stupid...

Posted Jun 1, 2011 20:44 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Is that really true? I think most of the LGPL authors are still alive and can be asked to relicense.

Sure, but why will they want to do that? When people refused to contribute code to OOo in the past (and contributed to GO-OO and later LibreOffice instead) they apparently did that because they wanted to contribute to open source project, not to be free sweatshop for proprietary forks.

Apache stewardship does not change anything in this regard: the code will still be used in proprietary forks (such as IBM's one).

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 21:17 UTC (Wed) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"Is that really true? I think most of the LGPL authors are still alive and can be asked to relicense."

They can be asked, but very very unlikely to agree to it.
after-all the copyright assignment clause(which negate the LGPL for the assignee, here Sun then Oracle, which where free to re-license all that GPL code under the license of their choice... and Oracle is doing just that once more) was a big motivation for the fork of libreoffice to start with, and why most of the code we are talking about was maintained prior to that as a collection of patches used to build GO-OO.

So, while technically the Apache CLA does not 'technically' include a copyright assignment, the end result is the same: the lost of the copy-left protection.

I can't imagine that people that where against the former will agree to the later...

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 21:20 UTC (Wed) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (16 responses)

"I am not sure that the DF (RH, Novell, Canonical etc) can keep up with ASF, Oracle, IBM etc in the long run."

Oracle is out of the picture. they have no intention to continue contributing at all. so the ASF camp is ... just IBM and wishful thinking that there will be a massive libre-office exodus to join ASF to help IBM continue to build a proprietary fork.... humm...

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 2, 2011 9:50 UTC (Thu) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (15 responses)

IBM will probably be in it for the long run and if companies can use the OO.o components for their own products they might get traction over time.

Maybe that is the future of OO.o, a lot of building blocks that can be used to build your own office application, but most of custom UIs will be closed source and the old UI will stay around forever. But if that is the goal then the Eclipse foundation might have been a better parent.

Let's look at this in 2 years. I am not sure the DF will bring a newer more modern and faster UI to LibreOffice .. and lets face it, that is what is needed. Otherwise people should just start to contribute to Calligra, which has way better foundations.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 2, 2011 14:35 UTC (Thu) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link] (14 responses)

>Maybe that is the future of OO.o, a lot of building blocks that can be used to build your own office application, but most of custom UIs will be closed source and the old UI will stay around forever. But if that is the goal then the Eclipse foundation might have been a better parent.

At least this way it remains under a GPL-compatible license (though not GPL2); if it went to the Eclipse foundation it would doubtless be EPL, which would mean no code could move between OO.o and LO in either direction.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 3, 2011 9:52 UTC (Fri) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (13 responses)

Yeah, exactly.
If Oracle are really the evil Do-No-Gooders like all the DF people say, then no code move from EPL to LGPL would be totally what they wanted.
There is already no way Oracle or Apache could integrate LibreOffice code.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 3, 2011 21:23 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

Oracle has very little to do with that decision... they wanted out and had contractual obligation toward IBM (from SUN times)... so they did what IBM told them to do to be free of these ties...

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 6, 2011 15:42 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (11 responses)

Why CAN'T Apache use LO code?

Aiui, they probably won't WANT to, but the LO licence is compatible with the Apache licence - hint - the LO *project* licence is not LGPL3. The program may be, but only because of the legacy licence from Oracle.

LO code is licenced LGPL3+/MPL, and I'm told the MPL2 and Apache2 licences are compatible.

Cheers,
Wol

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 6, 2011 18:04 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (10 responses)

they can't use the LO code because the license is only compatible one way.

you can take apache2 licensed code and put in in GPL3/LGPL3 programs, but you can not take GPL/LGPL code and put it in apache2 programs.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 6, 2011 19:17 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (9 responses)

What prevents Apache-licensed code from using LGPLv3+ libraries? Specific license citations are required.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 6, 2011 19:20 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (8 responses)

as separate libraries, nothing.

but taking code out of a LGPL library and putting it in an apache2 library is not allowed by the LGPL (anything released under the LGPL3 can be under the LGPL3 or GPL3, no other licenses)

so if OOo wants to stop shipping some functions itself and instead use the FO code as a library, that would be allowed.

but if OOo wants to copy fixes that went into FO and put them in their own library, that isn't allowed.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 7, 2011 1:02 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (7 responses)

But LO is *N*O*T* licenced LGPL3. (The binary is, but that's a historical accident.)

ONLY EX_ORACLE CODE is licenced LGPL3, which Apache will have under ASL2 courtesy of Oracle.

*A*L*L* the LO code (that is, code contributed to LO) is licenced MPL(2) which is ASL2 compatible.

In other words, if Apache want to take LO code then either (a) it is of Oracle origin, in which case Apache can use it under the ASL, or (b) it is of LO origin, in which case Apache can use it under the MPL.

Read the LO licencing guidelines - all code contributed must be LGPL3+/MPL+.

Cheers,
Wol

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 7, 2011 1:47 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

if code is contributed to LO under LGPL and MPL without copyright assignment, who has the right to put it under the apache2 license? Oracle sure doesn't (as they don't have the copyright)

LO already contains a lot of code that is not Oracle's to relicense

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:27 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (5 responses)

So?

If ASF wants to integrate LGPL or MPL code into their ASL code it would become LGPL or LGPL. That won't work if they intend to stay ASL.

No cookie for you.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:30 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (1 responses)

Err, what I mean is that LGPL and MPL cannot be relicensed to ASL. Ask your friendly license lawyer.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 7, 2011 17:27 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

But they can be mixed. That is the point.

First of all, FORGET THE (L)GPL. ALL CODE IS DUAL-LICENCED.

So if it comes from Oracle/OO it's ASL. If it comes from LO, it's MPL. (The (L)GPL is irrelevant, because if the code is dual-licenced, you can use the other licence instead.)

So, because Apache distribute as source, and the MPL merely requires that any MPL source files (and any modified MPL source files) accompany the executable - at least as I am led to to understood the MPL - then there is no problem mixing ASL and MPL code so long as the MPL source accompanies the binary.

Given that, you don't even need to relicence!

That was my point about "Apache CAN but WON'T". They CAN take LO code if they so desire. But if they insist on relicencing, then they WON'T take the code.

Cheers,
Wol

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:33 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (2 responses)

> If ASF wants to integrate LGPL or MPL code into their ASL code it would become LGPL or LGPL.

It depends entirely on how they do the integration. If they mutate the libraries, then yes. If they just call the libraries, then no.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 7, 2011 17:30 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

How would using MPL code make the program GPL?

And if the code is dual-licenced, it lets the distributor CHOOSE. If I use dual MPL/GPL code, I can use the MPL licence and my code does not become GPL.

Cheers,
Wol

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 7, 2011 18:21 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

I was referring specifically to LGPL-licensed code, not dual-licensed. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Neither MPL nor LGPL will force the distributor to make their program GPL, it should also be noted.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 2, 2011 11:07 UTC (Thu) by mchehab (subscriber, #41156) [Link] (12 responses)

> If LibreOffice closes up shop, and continue with ASF OOo, they would have to throw away the code that is LGPL-only, and set development back a few years.

What I see is the opposite happening: new code from Oracle/Apache/IBM/... will likely be licensed with ASF only, and such code can't be added into LibreOffice without re-licensing LibreOffice from LGPL into ASF, with may not happen. So, at the end of the day, each OO fork will follow its own way, without much code exchange between them.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 2, 2011 12:01 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

If IBM can reuse that code in its proprietary product, then so can LibreOffice. No legal issue.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 2, 2011 14:39 UTC (Thu) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link] (10 responses)

>new code from Oracle/Apache/IBM/... will likely be licensed with ASF only, and such code can't be added into LibreOffice without re-licensing LibreOffice from LGPL into ASF

The ASL is GPL-compatible, so code can be incorporated into OO without relicensing.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 2, 2011 17:01 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (8 responses)

He was right about no transfer, just wrong on the direction. LO will be able to use every bit of code submitted to OO.org but OO.org won't be able to use any of the LO code. So anyone collaborating with the OO.org project gets their improvements put into LO but the improvements in LO don't flow back. This means regardless of where anyone contributes, LO will have more features and more submissions providing the projects don't diverge.

I really don't understand why anyone wouldn't want the TDF to go back to OO.org, even if it is run by the ASF.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 2, 2011 17:11 UTC (Thu) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link] (2 responses)

Considering that LibreOffice already has a working infrastructure, community, a lot of new code, and as you said an advantage in licensing, why wouldn't the ASF simply go and join the TDF?

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 2, 2011 18:22 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

I wonder if they would (IMO the ASF would rather see an apache license rather than a GPL license), but that would be my preferred outcome for ASF to accept then hand the whole thing over to TDF. Do you think the ASF would be willing to donate an entire project to a group that will only GPL license?

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 3, 2011 0:29 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

The TDF/LO is *NOT* "only GPL licence".

The preferred licence is MPL which is, from my non-lawyer perspective, apparently a very weak copyleft licence.

The only reason LO is (at present) an LGPL3-only project, is because that is licence on the code they forked from Oracle. What effect any licence change from Oracle's LGPL3 to ASL will have, I don't know, but if ASL and MPL are compatible then there'll probably be a very rapid convergence - in both directions - between OO and LO.

Cheers,
Wol

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 2, 2011 18:26 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (4 responses)

Wouldn't should be Would. That entire sentence reads the opposite of what I intended. Ever since TDF was founded I've advocated for dumping permanently the OO.org name (even if TDF gets control of it). I like the LibreOffice name much better than OO.org.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 3, 2011 10:25 UTC (Fri) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link] (2 responses)

_I_ honestly really don't like the LibreOffice name (may be the influence of my native language) It sounds crappy and weird IMO. OpenOffice sounds nice, friendly and smooth and has a good melody. Libre Office just sounds hard, radical, revolutionary and fundamentalist (my first associations)
That is also probably what most businesses will think. Maybe not as bad as I do, but it will be the gerneral direction I guess. Most Corparate types hate GPL, FSF, Libre-something etc.

Millions of people already know and like OpenOffice, I see it on computers of very normal people (who have no interest in computing whatsoever) all the time.

LibreOffice may soon be really big in the Linux world, but in the real world people, magazine, etc will contiunue to use OpenOffice if they continue to provide good Windows binaries. To normal users the differences on Windows are so small that they will not change away from something they already know. They will not care PERIOD
Keeping the name and joying the two projects is the hands down the best solution. Everybody who works against that needs step aside and have a look at the bigger picture.(Maybe even get his head checked) The more I read about the DF and how opposed they are to help Apache the more I think that Marks words about the people who run the DF are probably more true than I at first thought.

Releasing OO.o under ASL is a really big gift to the community. I really fail to see all the evil people try to read into it.

It's funny

Posted Jun 5, 2011 10:35 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

LibreOffice may soon be really big in the Linux world, but in the real world people, magazine, etc will contiunue to use OpenOffice if they continue to provide good Windows binaries. To normal users the differences on Windows are so small that they will not change away from something they already know. They will not care PERIOD

It's funny how you define "real world" - like Linux is somehow unreal. As for users who "will not care PERIOD"... if don't see why we should care about these users. The final goal here is to move said users to Linux (well, *BSD will Ok too). If we can not even move them to different office suite because they can not learn the new name... then what's the point?

Everybody who works against that needs step aside and have a look at the bigger picture.

I'm sick and tired of looking on "bigger picture". It's not pretty: people (LibreOffice developers, Linux developers, etc) are spending a lot of time trying to help other people - but said other people "will not care PERIOD". IMNSHO it's well past time to stop looking on "bigger picture" and start fixing bugs which affect the life of the people who do care. Leave the people who don't care to IBM and Canonical.

Releasing OO.o under ASL is a really big gift to the community.

It's gift to the IBM. Which can not use latest version of OpenOffice.org codebase. Community can pick some pieces too, but there are absolutely no sense to do the IBM's work for free.

P.S. As for the name... who still remember (or care?) about Netscape or Mozilla? They were big names just a ten years ago. Today... Mozilla is the organization which produced Firefox - and that's it. If LibreOffice will indeed be more usable then OpenOffice.org then people will use it - fundamentalist name or not. If it'll be indistinguishable from OpenOffice.org... then will it really matter?

It's funny

Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:36 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

The intentions of the DF are different from your intentions then. They want it to be used by as many people as possible. Just like OpenOffice is now.
A sucky name is probably not helping.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 3, 2011 18:32 UTC (Fri) by zeekec (subscriber, #2414) [Link]

My problem with the LibreOffice name is that it looks too much like a library (What is this reoffice library, and why is it taking an hour to compile (Gentoo)?!?).

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 3, 2011 0:24 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Problem is, the preferred LO licence is MPL. So it's all very well saying "it's GPL-compatible", but (a) is it MPL compatible? And (b) is it *L*GPL3+ compatible, LO's secondary licence?

Cheers,
Wol

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 3, 2011 21:15 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"Are there really that many good reasons not to? Or was MarkS right and there is a whole different spin to this whole thing?"

Yes there is: "meet the new Boss(IBM), same as the old Boss (Oracle)"
None of them have any interest whatsoever in a a strong OpenOffice suite. what IBM is drooling about is doing to OpenOffice what Apple as managed to do so successfully with so many non-copyleft-open-source project.

IBM has made it clear for a long time what there interest in OpenOffice is:

"OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes. Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony."
source: http://ibm-lotus-symphony.software.informer.com/wiki/

After OOo 2.0, Sun got a bit upset about IBM absuse so they re-licensed stuff in a way that forced IBM to do a deal with them. Which IBM did as evidence of claim to do work based on OOo2 and OOo3 which are LGPL (and since they have not contributed back a line to OOo, either their claim are false or they must have another license - which can only be negotiated, at the time, with Sun.

Note that Sun was able to do that thanks to there 'Copyrigth Assignment' policy...
That was a core reason why GO-OO was started and ultimately the TDF and LibreOffice..

Now IBM see an opportunity to do the same thing more straight-forwardly using ASF. IBM is taking a page of Apple play-book and see if they can apply it to OpenOffice... Hey it worked for Apple, maybe they will be able to fool enough people in working for them for free with nothing in return,
but I would not expect the people at TDF to line-up for that.

BTW: would you suggest that Jenkins give up and flock back to Hudson, now that it has been dumped on the Eclipse Foundation's lap ?

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 17:53 UTC (Wed) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link]

Well I guess there is not as much bad blood between the two that was reported.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Posted Jun 1, 2011 18:43 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]

It does remind me of the ill-fated "Harmony" initiative,
also a push by IBM towards Apache. That too was positioned
to "unite", but ended up pushing away all the existing
community around the GNU implementations.
https://lwn.net/Articles/184967/

But something good came out of that exercise after all.
The biggest issue was the incompatibility between ASLv2 and GPLv2.
It was a big driver for making sure the Apache license and GPLv3 were
compatible, to prevent such a silly issue to be used to drive a wedge
between communities.

LibreOffice has already switched to LGPLv3, so it is automagically
compatible with ASLv2. So at least the code can keep flowing towards
wherever the active community wants it to be.