Stop
Stop
Posted Aug 18, 2015 18:41 UTC (Tue) by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)In reply to: Stop by corbet
Parent article: Schaller: An Open Letter to Apache Foundation and Apache OpenOffice team
There are many comments full of critic of LGPL-licensed OpenOffice.
Btw, OpenOffice is LGPL-licensed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
"License Dual-licensed under the SISSL and GNU LGPL (OpenOffice.org 2 Beta 2 and earlier)[7]
GNU LGPL version 3 (OpenOffice.org 2 and later)[8]"
Posted Aug 18, 2015 19:49 UTC (Tue)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (14 responses)
If you follow the link from Wikipedia and read the page (like the people editing Wikipedia should have done), it has a heading that reads "Licenses of Legacy Releases of OpenOffice.org software" and then goes on to mention LGPLv3, whereas directly above that heading it says, "Apache OpenOffice releases are made available under the Apache License 2.0." Meanwhile, not one person has been criticising OO or LO for having a copyleft licence. It just sounds like you want to start an argument about something completely unrelated to the topic actually being discussed and that this is your feeble way of doing so. (I personally remain sceptical about systemd, but it wouldn't occur to me to troll random articles on LWN to make people argue with me about it.)
Posted Aug 18, 2015 20:14 UTC (Tue)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (13 responses)
And I stand by it that OpenOffice is still LGPL-licensed software:
"Sections or single pages are covered by certain licenses. If a license notice is displayed, you may use the content of that page according to that license.
In all other cases, the page is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (ALv2)."
Well, it should be clear that Apache License does not apply retroactively !
Next, please:
"Licenses of Legacy Releases of OpenOffice.org software
Apache Releases follow specific policies concerning licensing that are closely tied to the branding of the product. It still may be possible, however, to find older releases through third parties or Internet archives that lie out of the control of the Apache Project. For this reason it is highly recommended to review carefully the documentation included with the software."
That means, in the spirit of open and free software (and GPL, which was created, among others, to disallow waste of past software - who would argue with that ?), anyone can pick up LGPL-licensed past software base of OpenOffice and fork it, and continue development under that same license.
So, LGPL is one of valid licenses for OpenOffice, past and present.
Btw, all I asked was why the double standard w/r to LGPL-ed OpenOffice and systemD(efeat) ?
Posted Aug 18, 2015 20:41 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (12 responses)
> "Sections or single pages are covered by certain licenses. If a license notice is displayed, you may use the content of that page according to that license.
> In all other cases, the page is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (ALv2)."
> Well, it should be clear that Apache License does not apply retroactively !
Well, that makes it clear also that your grasp of English isn't up to much either ... this section you've just quoted doesn't make sense unless you assume it is talking about pages on the website - ie it's irrelevant to any discussion about OpenOffice.
Cheers,
Posted Aug 18, 2015 20:49 UTC (Tue)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Aug 19, 2015 10:19 UTC (Wed)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (10 responses)
Now, from the Wikipedia page you referenced, it says this: "OpenOffice.org (OOo), commonly known as OpenOffice, was an open-source office suite." This indicates that OpenOffice.org is not a current product and that the page therefore effectively describing an older version of Apache OpenOffice. We could discuss at length what effect the licensing of that software has on some peripheral debate about something else, but no-one really cares about the OpenOffice.org code any more (perhaps apart from some people in a basement office at IBM).
Meanwhile, the Wikipedia page about Apache OpenOffice is referenced in the first paragraph of the article mentioned above. And that Wikipedia page indicates that the Apache 2.0 licence applies, using a link to the same licensing page I mentioned earlier. So it would seem (as everyone else commenting is quite aware) not even a licensing coincidence can provide an excuse to start an argument about some other software.
It's easy to get caught out, I will admit. People will find that Wikipedia page and think that it describes the current software, as you have demonstrated. And I forgot that I needed to make a distinction between the different things, which is something I should have kept in mind given that we're dealing with the involvement of two of the most pointless-rebranding-happy companies in technology (Sun and Oracle).
Posted Aug 19, 2015 13:23 UTC (Wed)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (9 responses)
The Apache OpenOffice (considered itself the unbroken continuation of OpenOffice.org, by others regarded as a fork or a separate project) and LibreOffice forks (actual or perceived) allowed them to change a license or introduce dual-licensing and other code licensing shenanigans they felt necessary to achieve their goals in their product development and market positioning.
The attempt of LibreOffice crew to monopolize OpenOffice suite licensing and marketing goals has failed.
I think Mr. Schaller's open letter is naive and self-serving. He tries to ressurect LibreOffice's attempt at monopoly by other means now -
Let's hope it ain't going to happen.
Ideally there should be at least two competing centers of free and open source OpenOffice suits, with somewhat different licensing schemes that would serve the market and all of us.
Posted Aug 19, 2015 14:12 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (4 responses)
...I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, are attempting to propose, or what your point is.
And so far, I get the impression that you don't either.
Posted Aug 19, 2015 14:31 UTC (Wed)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Aug 19, 2015 14:53 UTC (Wed)
by seyman (subscriber, #1172)
[Link] (2 responses)
At this point, I feel the Calligra suite and the Abiword/Gnumeric combo are better alternatives to LibreOffice than AOO. So I'm not convinced it's imperative for FLOSS the latter sticks around.
Posted Aug 19, 2015 15:29 UTC (Wed)
by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)
[Link] (1 responses)
The presence of an alternative OpenOffice-like provider and license holder in this space is important strategically - consider it a state of
Posted Aug 19, 2015 21:26 UTC (Wed)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Being open source already gives us that. The moment LO goes off the rails, someone will fork it and onward we go. It's happened lots of times and usually works out great. There's simply no need to keep AOO on active standby, ready to take over if circumstances warrant. (also, can AOO be considered a healthy player...?)
The reason there are so may distros is because they are a constant source of innovation and experimentation. If that had been your argument, then I would agree. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Posted Aug 19, 2015 14:23 UTC (Wed)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (3 responses)
Nothing stops anyone from forking LibreOffice right now. And I don't know whether that relicensing ever took place given that it seems like a colossal amount of messing around that provides little or no technical benefit while only really opening the door to questionable "business opportunities" for those people who want to make proprietary software. And if the copyright isn't centrally owned, such an exercise potentially takes on the work of rewriting stuff that objecting contributors have provided, which might not even lead to a result that is beyond legal question if one of those contributors objects to the result.
If you're saying that there needs to be a permissively-licensed OpenOffice for people who want to ship proprietary software then I understand your point, even though I strongly disagree with it and think that Apache OpenOffice is just a sideshow that enables the likes of Oracle (if they are still interested) and IBM to do just that, all the while exposing the "corporate source" nature of projects when the "open source not Free Software" crowd take the reins.
Posted Aug 20, 2015 0:59 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
Which relicencing is that? Rebasing LO onto AOO rather than OOo in order to inherit the Apache licence? I know a lot of that work has been done, but I don't know whether it's all been done.
NB, LibreOffice is MPL - at least, that is the licence that is (and always has been) required for contributions. Any code contributed to LO will definitely be MPL. The waters are muddied, however, by the fact that AOO code has been copied into LO (acceptable, because the Apache licence permits distribution under MPL or GPL), and that the original code dump by Oracle was LGPL. So if the rebasing hasn't been done, the only safe licence for binary distribution is (L)GPL, despite that not being the LO licence.
Cheers,
Posted Aug 20, 2015 7:49 UTC (Thu)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link] (1 responses)
In their hate of anything (L)GPL-ish AOO stripped AOO of any dep licenced a way they didn't like, going so far as removing standard freedesktop.org components people had slaved on for decades to bring to the state of the art, and had taken a lot of time to agree on (to avoid cross app/ cross desktop discrepancies).
Pretty much what Google did to avoid the GPL in Android, without the manpower to bring the replacements up to par (IIRC AOO even removed bits Google kept in chromebooks), and ruining any serious Linux integration as a result.
Posted Aug 25, 2015 17:10 UTC (Tue)
by jimjag (guest, #84477)
[Link]
Posted Aug 18, 2015 19:49 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Posted Aug 18, 2015 19:57 UTC (Tue)
by edomaur (subscriber, #14520)
[Link]
Stop
Btw, OpenOffice is LGPL-licensed
Stop
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
Stop
Wol
Stop
when applied to web pages, source code, or whatever else. I made a mental shortcut.
I admit, English is not my native language.
Stop
Stop
But because the new licensing schemes are not retroactive, the LGPL-licensed OpenOffice.org software base was and obviously still is LGPL licensed.
And that's my point not to be forgotten.
As I already stated, anybody can restart LGPL-licensed OpenOffice suite at any time by creating a new fork and offer it to us as a new alternative suite.
That's a safety valve and check that should be kept in mind by everybody just in case ...
I would suggest you re-read this article (and comments):
Relicensing and rebasing LibreOffice
https://lwn.net/Articles/498898/
basically telling Apache OpenOffice to throw their hands in the air and give themselves up. That's silly.
If for no other reasons than because LibreOffice crew, and GPL and other licensing meisters and smooth operators in general (Apache License, LGPLv3, GPLv3.0+, LGPLv3.0+, AGPLv3.0+, MPLv2+, to name a few ...) can not be trusted with that responsibility (there are too many "world domination" militants, subversive manipulators, and troll-button pushing hillbillies in their ranks who should be kept in check by all true free and open source software participants).
Anything less would be uncivilized.
Stop
Anything less would be uncivilized. [and much more]
Stop
Any silly open letters to the contrary are counterproductive and pure nonsense.
Tell me again what are you missing ?
Stop
Stop
healthy checks and balances, in which a stray player can be replaced by a healthy one if warranted by cicumstances.
That's also why we have many Linux distros - I thought in the distant past that it was a distraction and waste of resources, until I realized that it is a safety check against degeneration.
Stop
Stop
Stop
Wol
Stop
In their hate of anything (L)GPL-ish AOO stripped AOO
"hate" is such a nasty and incorrect word. Of course, it's a great word to use if the intent is to fan flames and perpetuate FUD.
Stop
Stop
Stop