Stop
Stop
Posted Aug 19, 2015 13:23 UTC (Wed) by jb.1234abcd (guest, #95827)In reply to: Stop by pboddie
Parent article: Schaller: An Open Letter to Apache Foundation and Apache OpenOffice team
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.
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 ...
The attempt of LibreOffice crew to monopolize OpenOffice suite licensing and marketing goals has failed.
I would suggest you re-read this article (and comments):
Relicensing and rebasing LibreOffice
https://lwn.net/Articles/498898/
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 -
basically telling Apache OpenOffice to throw their hands in the air and give themselves up. That's silly.
Let's hope it ain't going to happen.
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).
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.
Anything less would be uncivilized.
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]
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