I don't understand the assertions here. It may not matter in the larger scheme of things, but I didn't want some of the assumptions here to go unquestioned.
1. It is certainly the case that the proposal comprehends sustaining OpenOffice.org and continuing it as an Apache project. The proposal also makes this statement: "The OpenOffice.org implementation will serve as a reference implementation of the Open Document Format standard." While that is broader (depending on what the Apache OpenOffice.org implementation ends up being) than serving as a clean reference implementation, the notion of having a layered set of reference components that serve as a reference implementation for customization as various distributions has been discussed on this list, including by me, among others. It is my primary interest. In any case, I believe that is for the podling to resolve as part of its march through incubation. 2. The relicensing of bits not desired by the podling as LGPL strikes me as (a) extremely unlikely -- based on what we have been repeatedly told about the Apache way and (b) twice unnecessary since (i) those bits are presumably already available under LGPL by those who choose to go fish them off the OpenOffice.org site and, for that matter, from LibreOffice among other places and (ii) having them available in an idle but IP-cleared state at Apache, though not exactly lined up with the Apache way, means as ALv2 bits they are usable by LGPL-focused projects anyhow. (You say copyleft license, but there are reciprocal licenses that are not compatible with GPL/LGPL and I assume you mean [L]GPL.) Finally, the copyright has not been transferred from Oracle. Oracle granted the ASF a license under the Apache conditions for such licenses. The copyright on the licensed artifacts remains with Oracle. 3. As it appears the incubator podling will commence in a matter of days, I think it is now a matter of seeing how the importing of OpenOffice.org bits proceeds and where the podling chooses to focus in terms of establishing deliverables. There may well be multiple vectors, although we have to guard against having our arrows not lined up enough to ensure achievement of any successful results. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com] <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cBANLkTi=xbf7sg1nc2jjrd-obxofukki...@mail.gmail.com%3e> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 11:55 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation [ ... ] Since Oracle was willing to transfer the OOo source code copyrights to the ASF, the ASF could have accepted those copyrights, extract the related code for the ODF reference implementation, and re-release the source code with a copyleft license. > There is certainly no consensus on whether this is viable and the original > proposers do not want to limit the scope of the project to just this aspect. > However, there is a desire from some initial committees and some TDF > representatives to explore this. > > As a mentor I aim to see if this refactoring, with the collaboration > opportunities it presents, can be realised. > I think you refer to overall OOo refactoring (which is indeed needed), rather than code that relates to the ODF format. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
