This isn't helpful Bill IMO. Lotsa people have acculturated to the FSF view of software licensing, and no amount of arguing will change their mind.
We have to accept that some people within libreoffice will just be completely turned off to the idea of collaborating with IBM for the sole purpose (as they see it) of enabling a closed-source product to be based on their work. That is a position I'm quite capable of respecting, despite my own view on the subject. Most of our own ideology surrounding licensing is based on pragmatism towards an intellectual commons that doesn't exclude closed source participation. It's not so much that we're fixated on the particulars of the Apache License, it's that it's good enough to allow us to build the types of communities we're interested in. It's the development communities and their dynamics that we focus on, and the license is there to reduce the amount of friction we deal with when accepting contributions. Could it be improved? Sure, but the cost of doing so far outweighs the foreseeable benefits at this point. That equation will no doubt change as time goes on. ----- Original Message ---- > From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 1:47:28 PM > Subject: Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice > > In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the > "one true license"... but I think there is one interesting point to be > raised here... > > On 6/5/2011 3:30 AM, Keith Curtis wrote: > > > > Why "open source" advocates at IBM would stand up for the "right" of > > software to be made proprietary in the future makes no sense to me. I > > would think the job of an IBM evangelist would be to advocate > > copyleft, not to evangelize lax licenses using IBM's reputation. It is > > the little guys that get screwed by lax licenses. Convincing IBM to > > make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who > > is working on that? > > First, let me correct you, open source predates the FSF. The OSI has > done a fine job of addressing the meanings in a way all open source > communities appreciate. There is a specific term used by the FSF and > others, "Free/Libre" software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work > is ever "Free/Libre". There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought, > and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the two > of us can. > > With that said... > > > LibreOffice is a success, and way ahead of you guys > > As an advocate of the one true license, I make several assumptions; > that you have a disdain for the Microsoft and OS/X ports, as those > operating systems are not Free. You aren't particularly keen on the > BSD ports either, not because it is not Free, but that it does not > promote the cause of software freedom. You have a goal of having > the best collection of software possible available on Free Operating > Systems, notably Linux. Sorry for any mischaracterization, but I > would like to use your strong post to draw out this point; > > I see a strong role for license advocacy from LibreOffice, and also > expect LibreOffice to extend OOo (with or without the ASF) in new > and exciting directions. There are many developers who feel as you > do, some possibly who even refused to play ball with the Sun/Oracle > copyright assignment. LibreOffice might be expected to remain the > premier Linux distribution of OpenOffice, as some of the best minds > in Linux/Gnome/KDE development believe as you do. > > But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try > to be the preeminent Windows or OS/X port of the software, since > by definition improving GPL works for a closed source operating > system is something of an oxymoron. Not that such a fork can't or > shouldn't continue! But reactions such as your own are inevitable > and to some extent, an ASF project gives the LibreOffice project > more flexibility to focus on its core ecosystems, the Libre OS's. > > None of this is meant to be disingenuous to any open source or > free software people or communities, it's just my reflections on > how those individuals with strongly held licensing beliefs can > (and likely will) collaborate within and across communities. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
