The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:47 UTC (Thu) by rcweir (guest, #48888)
In reply to: The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number. by mjg59
Parent article: A discordant symphony

Your conclusion does not remotely follow. The fact that code was checked into Subversion puts absolutely no obligation on anyone to do anything with it. For you to say that anyone has a "responsibility for turning it into a usable project", just because it was offered to the project is absurd.

In fact, there were concerns expressed by LibreOffice at the time we made the contribution, that if we contributed it, that we would force it down Apache's throat and replace OpenOffice with Symphony. But that is not how it works. We provided the Symphony source. It was put in a separate directory, segregated from the OpenOffice source. And then we discussed, openly and transparently what to do with it. The community -- not IBM -- decided it would be best to selectively merge in enhancements from Symphony into OpenOffice, and that is what we are doing.

Now you can say that the code might be "potentially useful to others" if we made a different choice. Perhaps. But I can also say that it will be very useful to millions based on the direction we agreed on, as a community, to make. But in the end, the decision is made by the volunteers who do the work, not by complaining bystanders.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:52 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (18 responses)

Not because it was offered. Because ASF accepted. Only ASF has the details of the SGA, and only ASF is in a position to provide the licensing clarity. You've already said that you think the intended licensing is sufficiently clear. Others disagree. Why not make it explicit enough that they've got nothing to complain about?

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:14 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (17 responses)

Again, we will fully review the code we release, before we release. This includes license review.

Your main complaint seems to be with a project decision not to release the Symphony contribution itself as an Apache product. But that was the consensus of the project. The decision was to merge it into OpenOffice.

But here's an idea. If you really want to see an Apache project based on Symphony, then you can make a proposal for that, to the Apache Incubator project. Propose a new project, based on that source code, and find volunteers to help you work on it. More experienced Apache members will help you understand the requirements for reviewing the code and getting fully in conformance with Apache release requirements. If you get the equivalent of 5 or 6 full time engineers working on it then you can probably do it in 2 or 3 months.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:20 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (16 responses)

Uh. No. I just think that files you distribute should have an explicit statement regarding the rights the submitter intended to grant. I don't expect you to put time or effort into making it build or verifying that the licensing is correct or fixing bugs - there's no reason at all for you to do that for sections of code that you have no interest in, and it would be unreasonable for people to demand that of you. If IBM's intent was for the code to be available under a liberal license, just explicitly say so rather than referring to a document that isn't available to the public.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:27 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (15 responses)

And again, that will occur before any code is released.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:33 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (14 responses)

We're still clearly speaking at cross purposes. You're talking about a full IP review. I'm talking about the license that you've asserted is already clearly attached to the code, an assertion that others disagree with. If you believe that the code is (barring errors on the part of IBM or other third parties) already available under liberal licensing terms, why not make that absolutely clear in the repository?

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:44 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (13 responses)

You've already received a reply to this on the Apache legal-discuss list. SGA's are made available for inspection to Apache Members, but are not made public. Again, the main purpose of SGA'ed code is for the project make use if it in a release. The process and the paper trail was not designed for someone who wants to immediately fork the code.

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.

Regards,

-Rob

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:05 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

Right, which means that Jon's comments about the licensing being unclear were justified. There's no way for an external developer to verify the license state. The README you keep referring to explicitly instructs the reader to refer to an unavailable document for further information. For many practical purposes, the code is not available under an open license and won't be until it's merged into AOO - and even then, if there are features you're uninterested in (either because they're too niche to be worth supporting, or duplicate other existing functionality or whatever) that code may never be available under an explicitly free license.

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?

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:30 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (1 responses)

If you think you can determine what that file list is from the information provided, then that demonstrates that the list is redundant and any doubt expressed is feigned.

But if that is the root cause of your confusion, then I'll look into providing that list in Subversion.

OK?

-Rob

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:34 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

If I can then it's an easy way for me to actually do something that I think would be helpful rather than arguing online, and if I can't then Jon was right on this point. But yes, I think supplying that list would be a great thing for you to do. Licensing clarity is always helpful.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:33 UTC (Fri) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link] (9 responses)

The process and the paper trail was not designed for someone who wants to immediately fork the code.

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.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:47 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (7 responses)

Actually, we're very interesting in making things easier for downstream consumers.

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.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 23, 2013 19:42 UTC (Wed) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link]

Nobody cares about releases.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 23, 2013 20:01 UTC (Wed) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link] (5 responses)

We're not interested in slapping our license and brand on code, flipping it or acting as money launderers for the open source community.

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.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 23, 2013 23:28 UTC (Wed) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (4 responses)

That's a fine conspiracy theory you have there. But one problem:

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.

Please send me a link if you believe I am in error.

Regards,

-Rob

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 24, 2013 16:35 UTC (Thu) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link] (3 responses)

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.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 24, 2013 18:15 UTC (Thu) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (2 responses)

False. False. False. False.

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.

-Rob

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 25, 2013 1:43 UTC (Fri) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link] (1 responses)

It doesn't matter if he's a programmer or not, and your inherent bias there is ridiculous.

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.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 25, 2013 2:16 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

This isn't complicated. If Italo wants something from Apache OpenOffice then he should ask for it on the Apache OpenOffice mailing list instead of bitching and moaning about it on the LibreOffice mailing list. Is that an unreasonable request? I'm not asking him to prostrate himself or anything. But if he honestly has a question, then take the question to those who might have an answer. If he wants help with something then take it to those who can help. If he is confused, then talk to those who can clarify. But by all means, if he just wants to spread FUD, then talk to Lwn.net.

Difficult on purpose ???

Posted Jan 25, 2013 22:47 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

I know I've had my spats with Rob, but this really does sound like picking a fight!

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.

Cheers,
Wol