LWN: Comments on "Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation"

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Trelane — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:21:52 +0000

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

Wol — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:30:39 +0000

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

Wol — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:27:47 +0000

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

Never attribute to malice...

jschrod — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:10:15 +0000

You mean, it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, but it ain't a duck?

Yeah... By the way, I've got a bridge to sell. Interested?

It's funny

kragil — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:36:18 +0000

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

Trelane — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:33:02 +0000

> 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

kragil — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:30:17 +0000

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

kragil — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:27:18 +0000

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

dlang — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 01:47:24 +0000

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

Wol — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 01:02:52 +0000

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

dlang — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:20:52 +0000

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

Trelane — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:17:57 +0000

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

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

dlang — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:04:42 +0000

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

Wol — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:42:28 +0000

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

It's funny

khim — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:35:10 +0000

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?

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

shmget — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:23:52 +0000

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

shmget — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:15:50 +0000

"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

zeekec — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:32:27 +0000

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

kragil — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:25:15 +0000

_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.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

kragil — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 09:52:34 +0000

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

Wol — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:47:40 +0000

There are also reports that it's actually IBM that owns a lot of the Java copyrights.

So, seeing as Oracle may well have bought Sun in part for Java, they can't really afford to upset IBM if that is the case :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

Wol — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:29:51 +0000

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

Wol — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:24:31 +0000

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

What ASF should do, IMHO

Trelane — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:16:00 +0000

> Cannot figure out a way to edit / add to my own comment.

There is none on LWN. This is considered a feature. :)

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

AlexHudson — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:33:26 +0000

OpenOffice.org doesn't really fit well into the .PNG example. For one, much of the value for end users isn't much to do with ODF: it's the ability to interoperate with Microsoft Office.

But even if you look only at ODF, the issue there is more akin to web browsers than a library. ODF doesn't have a specific rendering system (nothing mandates a document be laid out in any particular way to conform to the standard), doesn't have much idea of conformance, and could be implemented in a variety of different ways.

I daresay, though, the main reason there are specific people strongly pro-copyleft is that the community has been burned a number of times now.

Re: What ASF should do, IMHO

agajan — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:22:43 +0000

I haven't seen that Oracle has assigned the copyrights on their OOo source code to the ASF. It seems that, instead, Oracle intends to distribute their OOo source code under the the terms of Apache License version 2.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

rahvin — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:26:09 +0000

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

rahvin — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:22:23 +0000

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?

What ASF should do, IMHO

rahvin — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:17:50 +0000

Personally I think the ASF should graciously accept the transfer, then promptly hand the whole kit over to TDF (nice big FU to Oracle for all the Java/Harmony BS). Then TDF can officially kill oo.org and has full control over everything.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

iabervon — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:15:53 +0000

My expectation is that Oracle doesn't care about any of this. OO.o isn't why they bought Sun, it's not something they care about, and it has been just generating bad press for them. They'd probably prefer to just never talk about it again. IBM, however, wants to be able to make a proprietary version, can't start from the LGPL base, but would like to stay in sync as much as possible with it. Oracle doesn't want to piss IBM off more than necessary, particularly since they're competitors and Oracle gets a lot of anti-trust attention. I think IBM wants the ASF version to be something that LO will merge regularly and to which people will contribute the work they'd like in all office software, and Symphony and LO can diverge less fundamentally.

FWIW, RMS's canonical example of a piece of software which should be under a non-copyleft license is libpng, because it implements a free standard which competes with a proprietary format. Surely, therefore, there should be an implementation of the semantics of ODF under a permissive license, and it should be used by all open-source software that uses ODF as well as any proprietary software vendors who are not trying to damage the format. So it would make sense to end up with OO.o under a permissive license having the standard ODF semantics engine and an unmaintained UI; Symphony replacing the UI with a proprietary one; and LO replacing the UI with an LGPL one.

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

DOT — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:11:00 +0000

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

rahvin — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:01:25 +0000

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

nye — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:39:34 +0000

>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

nye — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:35:22 +0000

>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

tzafrir — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:01:25 +0000

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

Never attribute to malice...

sorpigal — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:53:16 +0000

If Oracle wanted to hand the code over to a group of people capable of doing things properly they'd hand it to the document foundation. No?

Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation

mchehab — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:07:15 +0000

> 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

kragil — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:50:42 +0000

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.

What ASF should do, IMHO

paivakil — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 05:28:26 +0000

Cannot figure out a way to edit / add to my own comment.

Found this write up by Bradley M. Kuhn.

http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html

What ASF should do, IMHO

paivakil — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 05:23:10 +0000

I had slept over this news (actually, the announcement / response from TDF), and after giving the whole thing some thought, feel that the right thing for ASF to do would be to turn down the donation.

There is already TDF which looks after the LibreOffice / OO.o project and is doing a remarkable good job of it. (just look at the start up time for LibreOffice over OO.o - first impression for a normal user).

There may be other issues - like licensing, which Oracle (or whoever is pushing Oracle to do this) wants to skirt around. But right now, this is an attempt at (a) washing its hands off OO.o (b) insulting TDF's efforts in improving the project's performance and usability.

Probably, ASF may accept the code base without (or refusing) relicensing, but as others have pointed out, one cannot give what one does not have.