A discordant symphony
| Did you know...? LWN.net is a subscriber-supported publication; we rely on subscribers to keep the entire operation going. Please help out by buying a subscription and keeping LWN on the net. |
Last May, IBM announced the completion of its long-awaited contribution of the source code for its "Symphony" OpenOffice.org fork to the Apache Software Foundation. More than six months later, there is no freely-licensed version of Symphony available, and some observers, at least, see no evident signs that any such release is in the works. A look at the situation reveals gears that grind slowly indeed, leading to tension that is not helped by some unfortunate bad feelings between rival development projects.
Apache OpenOffice (AOO) and LibreOffice are both forks of the old OpenOffice.org code base. There is not always a great deal of love lost between these two projects, which, with some justification, see themselves as being in direct competition with each other. That situation got a little worse recently when de-facto AOO leader Rob Weir complained about talk in the other camp:
Rob raised the idea of putting out a corrective blog post, but the project consensus seemed to be to just let things slide. Clearly, though, the AOO developers were unhappy with how the "usual misinformed suspects" were describing their work.
The specific suspect in question is Italo Vignoli, a director of the Document Foundation and spokesperson for the LibreOffice project. His full posting can be found on the LibreOffice marketing list. His main complaint was that the Symphony code remained inaccessible to the world as a whole; IBM, he said, did not donate anything to the community at all. This claim might come as a surprise to the casual observer. A quick search turns up Apache's Symphony page; from there, getting the source is just a matter of a rather less quick 4GB checkout from a Subversion repository. Once one digs a little further, though, the situation becomes a bit less clear.
The Apache Software Foundation releases code under the Apache license; they are, indeed, rather firm on that point. The Symphony repository, though, as checked out from svn.apache.org, contains nearly 3,600 files with the following text:
* Licensed Materials - Property of IBM.
* (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 2003, 2011. All Rights Reserved.
That, of course, is an entirely non-free license header. Interestingly, over 2,000 of those files also have headers indicating that they are distributable under the GNU Lesser General Public License (version 3). These files, in other words, contain conflicting license information but neither case (proprietary or LGPLv3) is consistent with the Apache license. So it would not be entirely surprising to see a bit of confusion over what IBM has really donated.
The conflicting licenses are almost certainly an artifact of how Symphony was developed. IBM purchased the right to take the code proprietary from Sun; when IBM's code was added to existing, LGPLv3-licensed files, the new headers were added without removing the old. Since this code has all been donated to the Foundation, clearing up the confusion should just be a matter of putting in new license headers. But that has not yet happened.
What is going in here is reminiscent of the process seen when AOO first began as an Apache project. Then, too, a pile of code was donated to the Apache Software Foundation, but it did not become available under the Apache license until the first official release happened, quite some time later. In between there unfolded an obscure internal process where the Foundation examined the code, eliminated anything that it couldn't relicense or otherwise had doubts about, and meditated on the situation in general. To an outsider, the "Apache Way" can seem like a bureaucratic way indeed. It is unsurprising to see this process unfold again with a brand new massive corporate code dump.
There is an added twist this time, though. In June, the project considered two options for the handling of the Symphony code dump. One was the "slow merge" where features would be taken one-by-one from the Symphony tree; the alternative was to switch to Symphony as the new code base, then merge newer OpenOffice.org and AOO features in that direction instead. The "slow" path was chosen, and it has proved to be true to its name. Rob noted 167 bug fixes that have found their way into AOO from Symphony, but there do not appear to be any significant features that have made the move at this point.
One assumes that will change over time. The code does exist, the Foundation does have the right to relicense it, and there are developers who, in time, should be able to port the most interesting parts of it and push it through the Apache process. One might wonder why almost none of that work appears to be happening. If the project was willing to do the work to rebase entirely on top of the Symphony code, it must have thought that some significant resources were available. What are those resources doing instead?
Rob's mention of "larger pieces that will be merged in branches
first
" points at one possible answer: that work is being
done, we just aren't allowed to see it yet. Given the way the AOO
and LibreOffice projects view each other, and given that the Apache license
gives LibreOffice the right to incorporate AOO code, it would not be
surprising to see AOO developers working to defer the release of
this code under their license for as long as possible. It would be
embarrassing for LibreOffice to show up with Symphony features first, after
all.
On the other side, it is not at all hard to imagine that some LibreOffice developers would be happy to embarrass AOO in just that way. Their complaint is not that IBM did not donate the code; what really makes them unhappy is that LibreOffice cannot take that code and run with it yet. It must certainly be frustrating to see useful code languish because the AOO project and the Apache Software Foundation are taking their time in getting around to putting it under the intended license. But IBM chose a channel for the release of this code that puts its ultimate fate under the control of those entities; there is little to be done to change that.
Competition between software projects is not necessarily a bad thing; it
can motivate development and enable the exploration of different approaches
to a problem. Thus far, it is not clear that the rivalry between
AOO and LibreOffice has achieved any of that. Instead, it seems to
create duplication of work and inter-project hostility. The grumbling over
the Symphony source, which, meanwhile, sits unused by anybody seems like
another example of that dynamic. With luck, the AOO developers will
find a way to release the bulk of Symphony as free software, but one should
not expect it to happen in a hurry.
(Log in to post comments)
Posted Jan 16, 2013 21:54 UTC (Wed)
by josh (subscriber, #17465)
[Link] (149 responses)
"All Rights Reserved" is just old-style copyright boilerplate; it doesn't conflict with an Open Source license.
Posted Jan 16, 2013 21:57 UTC (Wed)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (148 responses)
Posted Jan 16, 2013 21:59 UTC (Wed)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (124 responses)
Posted Jan 16, 2013 22:18 UTC (Wed)
by josh (subscriber, #17465)
[Link] (122 responses)
Read the rest of that article: it originated as a boilerplate phrase that had similar legal significance to the "Copyright YYYY Author Name" part. Writing "All Rights Reserved" doesn't contradict a subsequent FOSS license any more than the "Copyright YYYY Author Name" part does.
Posted Jan 16, 2013 22:36 UTC (Wed)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (121 responses)
Seems like we need one of our occasional lawyer readers to chime in here. But, in any case, IBM has claimed ownership of the code in the files and has added nothing saying that its code has been licensed to anybody. I wouldn't want to try to distribute it without some further assurance.
Posted Jan 16, 2013 22:46 UTC (Wed)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (1 responses)
When all members signed the Berne Convention, "All rights reserved" became totally useless, all that is practically the default mode for any work under the Berne Convention.
Of course, if there is no license statement, then IBM may not have provided you any license at all.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 22:49 UTC (Thu)
by simosx (guest, #24338)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 11:21 UTC (Thu)
by keeperofdakeys (guest, #82635)
[Link] (1 responses)
I'm not sure what conditions IBM gave to Apache for the code, but since it was a private affair, involving the owner of the work, license terms have no meaning.
Posted Jan 20, 2013 2:18 UTC (Sun)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Copyright is the right to stop someone else from making a copy. If a copyright holder licenses someone to make a copy, the copyright owner no longer has the right to stop that person from making a copy. So licensing does indeed take away rights from the licensor.
It's true that a license need not give up all rights under copyright. The licensor might retain the right to stop someone else from copying, which is why a second license might be possible.
Incidentally, a typical copyright license does not give any rights to the licensee, in the strict legal sense of the word "right." A legal right is the power of a person to control another person. What the licensee gains is a "privilege."
Posted Jan 17, 2013 15:23 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (116 responses)
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
When we talk about someone contributing something to Apache under an SGA it means they signed and submitted that form. Remember, this is the same process that Oracle used when submitting OpenOffice to Apache. The SGA is the legal contribution.
You're missing the forest for the trees if you are fixated on file headers.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 15:50 UTC (Thu)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (9 responses)
But even other Apache hackers don't want or can edit those files currently because IBM seems to refuse to correct the headers:
And it seems ASF policy is (reasonably) only the copyright holder may change the license headers on files:
And others have commented that the current situation is so murky that it is really hard to see who has rights to hack on and redistribute which files. So effectively nobody but IBM employees can work on this code even though technically it has been "donated" to Apache. Would it really be that hard to get IBM to fix that? Just like Oracle eventually fixed the headers for the original openoffice.org source files. It would mean a lot more people can actually hack on it and get more of the code in the hands of end users sooner. Thanks.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 16:14 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (5 responses)
Confusion is not limited to Lwn.net, clearly. But I hope my comments have clarified the state of these files.
If anyone really wants to help integrate these files, then post a note to dev@openoffice.apache.org and introduce yourself. I'll be more than happy to give you some hints and hopefully remove any doubts you might have.
But I'll be honest, so far all I've heard so far is complaints from non-lawyers and non-coders who are not interested in helping with the project. They tend not to get a lot of my time.
-Rob
Posted Jan 21, 2013 8:14 UTC (Mon)
by ceplm (subscriber, #41334)
[Link] (4 responses)
Matěj Cepl
Posted Jan 21, 2013 14:15 UTC (Mon)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (3 responses)
Your complaint seems to be that we're merging the Symphony code into OpenOffice rather than releasing it as-is. As stated before, the community considered both options but decided to do the merge approach. This is not FUD. This was done out of careful consideration of the benefits and liabilities of either approach. The discussion was held in public, on our mailing lists, which you are free to examine at your leisure.
Regards,
-Rob
Posted Jan 21, 2013 14:38 UTC (Mon)
by ceplm (subscriber, #41334)
[Link] (2 responses)
No, it isn't my complaint ... what I would prefer would be to release Symphony (or parts which you want to release) as it is, unmerged, unrebased, raw, uncompiliable (if it happens), with bugs, smell and everything (but with copyright statements corrected ... see my comments about Perl scripting of that). You would have a nice precedent with open sourcing of Java by Sun (which was not compilable in the beginning, if you recall the history).
We are adults here and we can understand what does releasing of parts of the code means. Programmers are usually pretty good in fixing, patching, rebasing etc. and community of them can do it better than a closed group under adult supervision ... that’s kind of the point of the open source development, isn’t it?
Thank you for replying
Posted Jan 21, 2013 15:28 UTC (Mon)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (1 responses)
-Rob
Posted Jan 21, 2013 16:01 UTC (Mon)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link]
The question was for *IBM* to update the license headers of the files since they are the copyright holder and claim to have granted a license. The answer was that the *Apache* project decided not to change the license headers for now even though they believe they have a grant from IBM to do so.
It would probably help to be explicit whether a question is asked of Rob/IBM and/or if an answer is given by Apache/Rob.
The original article (and a lot of the comments here) contain confusion about whether or not IBM actually donated the code or not. Part of that confusion comes from whether or not Apache accepted it or not. The current situation of confusing/wrong license headers on the "contributed" files doesn't help make that situation very clear. The answer would be immediately clear if IBM just clarifies the issue by cleaning up the headers. Or hopefully Matthews poking will help make clear whether the files as is can be seen as already under the Apache license because of the SGA and being distributed by the ASF and who can update/clean up the headers to give everybody the warm fuzzy feeling that a contribution was actually made and available as Free Software to all users.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 13:02 UTC (Fri)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (2 responses)
A real world analogy: imagine that I sign a contract to sell you a pile of my books, but then you refuse to take them because some books have "property of man_ls" written in the first page, until I erase that line from all of them. Hey, the books are now legally yours; feel free to modify them as you see fit.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 14:52 UTC (Fri)
by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
[Link] (1 responses)
It would be a bit like someone pulling a book of the shelf in the aforementioned purchaser's house, having been told by the purchaser to "take any of my books if you like them", and then reading the "property of man_ls" statement. One would be obliged to check once again with the purchaser or potential owner to make sure that the book is not one that has been borrowed and then mixed up with the rest of the purchaser's collection.
Such manual checking that everything is still legal or acceptable is precisely the kind of thing that conflicts with Free Software licences because one of the aims of such licences is to eliminate such bureaucratic obstacles, especially when they can be misused to effectively limit distribution even if grand promises of generosity have been made.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 14:55 UTC (Fri)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 16:01 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (105 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 16:20 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (19 responses)
Then, when 4.0 is ready for release, it will go through the standard release reviews and a vote, and when it is released, users and downstream consumers can be confident it meets the high standards we place upon releases.
But those who poke at unreleased code will likely find all sorts of issues, including bugs, discordant headers, performance or security issues, incomplete translations, etc. That is the nature of unreleased code.
-Rob
Posted Jan 17, 2013 16:23 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 16:45 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (10 responses)
Start with the terms of the SGA as stated here:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
Then look at the README file in the root of the contributed code:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/symphony/trun...
As stated there, the license headers clue you in on which specific files were contributed under the SGA. Ironically, the same text that some are expressing so much angst about is the same text that allows anyone to see what the contribution is. Go figure.
If it is not clear whether the code is suitable for your particular use, then it is your responsibility to get competent advice. But all the data you need is right there.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 16:54 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (9 responses)
"Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
That's fine as long as the Foundation is distributing the work, but from another comment by you:
"These files have not been published by Apache"
which leaves open the question of what distribution actually is in this case - I'd have thought that having the code in svn would count as distribution, but I'd also have thought it counted as publishing. It'd be straightforward for the ASF to make the situation completely unambiguous.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:18 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (8 responses)
Generally, an SGA gives sufficient rights for project members to work on the code and prepare it for release. If you want to help with that then we'd welcome your help. Send a note to dev@openoffice.apache.org and introduce yourself. However, if your needs require code only after it has been reviewed, tested, and voted on as an Apache release, then I'll be equally happy to hear from you then.
-Rob
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:25 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:42 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (3 responses)
If you have a question for the ASF, then why don't you ask them? They have a legal discussion mailing list where you are free to ask them about what an SGA means. But I do know that they value transparency and would probably not be keen on answering questions on pay-walled websites from anonymous posters.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#founda...
Regards,
-Rob
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:46 UTC (Thu)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:57 UTC (Thu)
by dashesy (guest, #74652)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 20:53 UTC (Thu)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link]
Posted Jan 21, 2013 8:20 UTC (Mon)
by ceplm (subscriber, #41334)
[Link] (2 responses)
Matěj
Posted Feb 1, 2013 1:03 UTC (Fri)
by mema (guest, #89121)
[Link] (1 responses)
The donation of the Symphony code to Apache was noted both by IBM, Apache, and even Meeks at his blog.
Since when is a donation, nothing? Only when IBM does it and its not under the GPL?
Posted Feb 3, 2013 21:26 UTC (Sun)
by ceplm (subscriber, #41334)
[Link]
My problem is with the people kind-of-relasing code under uncertain situation and not willing to clear it up. I cannot help myself but to feel that there is some attempt to keep the copyright status unclear so that the codebase they have no control over cannot profit from their code. Which seems to me to be against the spirit of all open source movement stands for. Just to be completely clear, and I am very much hoping I am wrong in my feelings, and the situation will settle quite quickly.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:33 UTC (Thu)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (3 responses)
For the original files contributed by Oracle this took a very long time to sort through all the files by an Oracle employee to double check Oracle really had the right to do that for all the files mentioned in the software grant and/or had to ask to have additional files added to the grant. Only IBM knows how much work that really would be for the symphony files.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:46 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (2 responses)
That is a policy statement, not a legal statement.
This is an important distinction. For example, an Apache project can not release software containing GPL code. That is a policy requirement. But legally, anyone else, outside of Apache, is free to mix ALv2 and GPL code together, if that suits their needs. The licenses are compatible in that way.
You should not confuse the stricter policy requirements incumbent on an Apache project versus what the license permits any random person to do.
-Rob
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:52 UTC (Thu)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link] (1 responses)
It doesn't have to be in every header; a simple document, just like IBM's, would be enough. Something along the lines of "This code is released to the general public under the terms of the Apache License v2", or whatever language you guys actually like to use.
Unless and until you explicitly release the code, it sure looks to me that IBM has given it to you, but not to us. I see no clear chain of permissions that would allow me to change and share that code freely.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:55 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
Well, kind of. Part of that license is a grant of permissions to anyone to whom that software is distributed by Apache. The question is what the precise meaning of "distribute" is in this case - we've already had an assertion that the code in question hasn't been published by Apache. In any case, Rob's right that this isn't the right venue for an authoritative answer, and so I've mailed the appropriate mailing list.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 18:26 UTC (Fri)
by vonbrand (guest, #4458)
[Link] (2 responses)
Surely you have a tame Perl hacker at hand, who can code up a global search & replace on the files? If they belong to Apache now, there is no legal problem in stripping/adding/updating the copyright headers. And the interested parties are grown up people (even if the recurrent flamew^Wdiscussions seem to belie that) who know what they are getting into when digging into a code drop.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 18:37 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 23, 2013 20:03 UTC (Wed)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 20:20 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (83 responses)
The only real risk I can see is the potential for the README not to reflect the SGA that was actually signed. Unfortunately the SGAs are not made publicly available, and so there's a chance that the code provided in the repository does not reflect the code that IBM agreed to license and verifying that is difficult.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 20:43 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (82 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 20:49 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (81 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 21:10 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (43 responses)
Paranoia is one thing. Refusal to even look around at easily available facts, or send questions to Apache for a quick confirmation, is pathetic.
Congratulations for being the first one to attain this august level of legal research and deductive logic. This level of accomplishment apparently is out of reach for the typical Lwn.net author or commenter.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 21:17 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (42 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 21:30 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (41 responses)
I don't see why you are so resistant to acknowledging that a volunteer-led project will work on what it considers to be its priorities and do so on its timetable. We do not take orders from random bystanders. Sorry, that's not how it works. Your impatience is irrelevant to me. Help if you want. Complain if you want. But your worth is not decided by your complaining.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 21:48 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (40 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 22:07 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (39 responses)
What you fail to understand, or at least appreciate, and by failing to understand this entirely miss the Big Picture about Apache, is that our releases are the way we benefit other projects. It is the scrutiny and review we give to code, as part of our pre-release reviews, that make it much safer for others to use. Our releases procedures are focused on preparing source distributions that others can use, to build derived products from. We carefully review file headers, produce aggregated LICENSE and NOTICE files, carefully verify that we can build from our source tarballs, etc. Our due diligence reduces risk and raises the comfort level that others have in using the code. That's what Apache does. We don't just slap an Apache License on things, hold our nose and toss it over the wall.
You seem to acknowledge this when you express impatience that we have not done this further review work already. LibreOffice acknowledges this when they merge in code form our releases and rebase their entire product on the released Apache code.
As for your assertion that the "ASF chose to take on the role of stewardship of this code". You are in error there. There has been no vote on this. SGA contributions do not require a vote. A release requires a vote. That is when we make the greater claims, as I have explained at greater length previously.
As for this article, the inaccuracies are legion, and I've rebutted several of them in another comment. But life is too short to waste time with a pedantic correction of every error.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 22:32 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (38 responses)
The SGA places conditions on the ASF, so I'm sceptical that it can be in effect without explicit agreement on the part of the ASF. I'm assuming that writing a significant body of racist invective, dropping it into a C file and then sending it to apache.org along with a signed SGA would not result in it automatically appearing in a subversion repository. You chose to accept this code, and in doing so you accepted that you would be taking responsibility for it.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 22:48 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (37 responses)
So you are equivocating, redefining terms in an attempt to rescue a failed argument and apparently proceeding without any aim other than to argue. That is a sign that it is time to end this pointless discussion.
As always, anyone with a serious interest in Apache OpenOffice can find our mailing lists and ask questions there. Those who wish to speculate without facts, exhibit paranoid delusions, or pontificate about what other volunteers should be doing will find pleasant company here on Lwn.net Or just wait until next week for Slashdot. It's cheaper.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 22:56 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (36 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:17 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (35 responses)
So if you put a "racist screed" in a C file (or preferable C++) and hid it within an SGA contribution, it could get into SVN. But as soon as it was found, it would be removed.
And if we found a Microsoft-owned header file in the contribution, then that would be removed.
And if we found a functional error then that would be fixed.
And if we found a security flaw, then that would be fixed.
And if a license header was wrong, then that would be removed.
This is all done as part of making an Apache release. This is all done openly, transparently on our mailing lists. (Subversion commit messages are echoed to a public mailing list).
When you think of it, how else would you transparently review, within a community, a software contribution, unless you first put it into a public repository where everyone could view it?
Regards,
-Rob
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:24 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:33 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 3:48 UTC (Fri)
by shmget (guest, #58347)
[Link] (4 responses)
Rob Weir being an IBM employee, working in the division that developed Symphony, is very aware about what the Symphony code base contain... Heck, surely IBM use source control internally, and surely know exactly while line come from Sun, which come from IBM and which come from 3rd party...
But Rob also is in charge of building an eco-system of volunteer to support IBM effort to take control of OpenOffice.org.
Hey, why not ? it is a trick as good as another to try to 'attract' contributors... I'm learning every day about 'The Apache Way'.
====
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Posted Jan 18, 2013 4:42 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (3 responses)
If you want a fully reviewed code base, then you'll need to wait for an official release containing that code. But no one is forcing you to wait for the release.
And if you think the wait is too long for your purposes then you are welcome to help us integrate it. But no one is forcing you to do that. You can always just take the un-reviewed code as is. Or wait for a release.
So the choice is really yours.
What you cannot do, at least not with any respect or credibility, is refuse to take the code as-is, refuse to help integrate it, and just whine about it endlessly.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 20:26 UTC (Fri)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link] (2 responses)
There is code in the SVN which may or may not be available under an open license. No on can know whether this code is open until and after Apache has reviewed the code, confirmed and voted that it is freely available. Otherwise you are at your own risk on whether it's freely available and because the official signed agreement (and any containing provisions) is not available well you are going to be pretty much guessing. (this is the first post out of more than a dozen in which you've freely admitted this after berating people on how simple it is)
This [code review] process will not be completed until and after the code has been inserted into the working Apache OO.org code, anything not deemed "worthy" of the Apache OO.org codebase will not be processed at this time and could in the future become lost code. (you have no intent to review or ascertain ownership of any code you don't use in the Apache OO.org codebase).
Not only that, but Apache will not help anyone sort out confusion on any piece of code unless that code follows the above process and is merged into Apache OO.org codebase first.
The only way for Apache to confirm any piece of code is actually under it's stewardship is for that code to end up in Apache OO.org.
Finally, Even if volunteers only wanted to help sort ownership of the SVN code and NOT integrate it into Apache OO.org they would be refused as the only help being asked for and accepted is to integrate into the Apache codebase. Apache will provide no assistance in ascertaining ownership of any code which is not used in Apache OO.org codebase.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 20:55 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link]
-Rob
Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:01 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link]
So your choice is really whether waiting for an Apache release, with the additional review we put into it is important to you. Many of our users feel that this is indeed important to them.
In fact, I'd say that LibreOffice also agrees on this, since they waited for the Oracle contribution of OpenOffice to be reviewed and approved by us before rebasing their product on it. So their confidence in changing the project's license from LGPL to MPL was only possible because of the careful review we did on the OpenOffice contribution.
But if you don't feel that the benefits of that extra review is worth the wait then don't wait. But also don't cry about it.
-Rob
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:33 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link]
Since the SGA is provided by someone asserting that they are providing a certain set of rights, then the risk of hosting the code is very low. Similarly, Lwn.net can host your comments, and mine, without first checking for copyright infringement, because as part of your account setup you asserted that you would not post infringing material.
With unreleased code, your confidence must be based on your own review. That doesn't make it unknowable. It just means that it is your responsibility.
For released code, Apache projects do extensive review, and you can choose to accept (or not) that due diligence as sufficient for your needs. We do this transparently on our mailing lists and we have a reputation for getting it right. That is part of the value we add.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:24 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (26 responses)
You're behaving as if code has no value until it's been through the Apache release process. Going through that process undeniably adds value, but it's potentially useful to others even without that. IBM provided a grant of permissions to a body of code - it would take very little time for you to explicitly pass on that grant (including appropriate disclaimers), and in the process you would make it much easier for others to make use of the code in advance of it working its way through your release process. Does that really seem like an unreasonable request?
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:47 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (19 responses)
In fact, there were concerns expressed by LibreOffice at the time we made the contribution, that if we contributed it, that we would force it down Apache's throat and replace OpenOffice with Symphony. But that is not how it works. We provided the Symphony source. It was put in a separate directory, segregated from the OpenOffice source. And then we discussed, openly and transparently what to do with it. The community -- not IBM -- decided it would be best to selectively merge in enhancements from Symphony into OpenOffice, and that is what we are doing.
Now you can say that the code might be "potentially useful to others" if we made a different choice. Perhaps. But I can also say that it will be very useful to millions based on the direction we agreed on, as a community, to make. But in the end, the decision is made by the volunteers who do the work, not by complaining bystanders.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:52 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (18 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:14 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (17 responses)
Your main complaint seems to be with a project decision not to release the Symphony contribution itself as an Apache product. But that was the consensus of the project. The decision was to merge it into OpenOffice.
But here's an idea. If you really want to see an Apache project based on Symphony, then you can make a proposal for that, to the Apache Incubator project. Propose a new project, based on that source code, and find volunteers to help you work on it. More experienced Apache members will help you understand the requirements for reviewing the code and getting fully in conformance with Apache release requirements. If you get the equivalent of 5 or 6 full time engineers working on it then you can probably do it in 2 or 3 months.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:20 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:27 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:33 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:44 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (13 responses)
To your other point, if someone wants a favor from IBM then I suspect that a courteous, well-reasoned request to an IBM email address might get greater consideration then rude sniping and demands via comments. Just saying.
Regards,
-Rob
Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:05 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (2 responses)
But ok. Let's put this another way. If I provided a patch that added a new document to the top level of the symphony svn tree, containing a list of files that the existing README implied were available under liberal terms and explicitly indicating that (barring accidental inclusion of third party code) these files could be redistributed under those terms, could that be merged?
Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:30 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (1 responses)
But if that is the root cause of your confusion, then I'll look into providing that list in Subversion.
OK?
-Rob
Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:34 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:33 UTC (Fri)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link] (9 responses)
Ah, we finally get the explicit admission that this is being made difficult on purpose.
All you guys need to do is stick a README file in that directory, explicitly transferring the rights you have to it, to the rest of the community. You consistently refuse to understand this, professing ignorance, but the quoted sentence is the real reason.... you're actively uninterested in making life any easier for the competition.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:47 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (7 responses)
Downstream consumers of our code will benefit greater, after our source distributions have been carefully reviewed, voted on and released. That is how Apache works. We're not interested in slapping our license and brand on code, flipping it or acting as money launderers for the open source community. When we release code it means something.
Posted Jan 23, 2013 19:42 UTC (Wed)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link]
Posted Jan 23, 2013 20:01 UTC (Wed)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link] (5 responses)
In other words, you're going to keep it to yourself as long as you possibly can, to try to damage LibreOffice. A simple README transferring your rights to the broader community would shut everyone up, but you refuse to do that, because you want the competitive advantage. And you're saying so, right here, a second time.
After your posts here, I think a lot less, a LOT less, of the Apache Foundation.
Posted Jan 23, 2013 23:28 UTC (Wed)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (4 responses)
No LibreOffice programmer has expressed interest in using this code, has said they lack permissions to use the code, or has even come to our mailing list to ask for clarification about what the license on these files is.
Please send me a link if you believe I am in error.
No one from Apache has ever said that the "broader community" does not have rights to use these files.
Please send me a link if you believe I am in error.
Regards,
-Rob
Posted Jan 24, 2013 16:35 UTC (Thu)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link] (3 responses)
Please send me a link if you believe I am in error.
Sure. Check https://lwn.net/Articles/532665/
That is some seriously disingenuous bullshit you're pulling there. "No programmer has expressed interest", when the official spokesperson for a competing project is complaining about it. The spokesperson! For the whole project!
And all you can do is whine about no actual coders coming to you, hat in hand, when their entire project is officially saying that you're withholding the code?
This is easy to fix, but you're not interested in fixing it. An attitude like that does not belong in open source. You should be ashamed of yourself. We're supposed to all be on the same side. If you want enemies, and to be able to put slimy bullshit over on your competition, while furiously polishing your tin halo, go back to proprietary development, where that kind of crap belongs.
Stop arguing with me and go fix this.
Posted Jan 24, 2013 18:15 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (2 responses)
1) Italo is not a programmer. He is the LO marketing lead.
2) His message is not an "official communication" from the project. It is just an ill-tempered post from him on a mailing list.
3) It was not a query, request for clarification, etc., to Apache. If he wants something, he knows where to go for it. So do you.
4) He is wrong on his assertions.
But other than weak grasp of facts and logic, your analysis is impeccable.
-Rob
Posted Jan 25, 2013 1:43 UTC (Fri)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link] (1 responses)
Per Corbet, he's (an? the?) official spokesperson for the project, to wit:
The specific suspect in question is Italo Vignoli, a director of the Document Foundation and spokesperson for the LibreOffice project.
Stop wasting time arguing with me. The fact that you're still replying to me, instead of just fixing it, is yet more proof that you want to sling words and do your damndest to slow down the competition, not help the open source community.
You're only interested in helping if people line up and do exactly what you say, in exactly the way you say it, which means you don't really want to help at all, you're looking for excuses not to. ("They're not programmers! They didn't ask on the right list! They're asking behind *gasp* a paywall!")
All excuses, and all transparent bullshit.
Posted Jan 25, 2013 2:16 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link]
Posted Jan 25, 2013 22:47 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Why on earth should Rob make his life difficult, to give you an easy ride?
The paper trail is designed, by Apache, to make Apache's life easy. How on earth can you stand there and claim that it was designed to be "being made difficult on purpose", just because it doesn't make *your* life easier!
The whole point behind Open Source is that people do things FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT but don't make life difficult for other people on purpose. Everything here I see implies that Rob and Apache are doing exactly that - they are not doing things to make your life easier, true, but equally they are not actively hindering you.
If their failure to act is harming you, you need to persuade them that that failure is not in their interest, not just moan about why they should put themselves out to make your life easy.
Cheers,
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:52 UTC (Thu)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (5 responses)
Unreasonable? No, but why would they spend time on this? Just because the competition is whining on LWN?
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:55 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 0:23 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (3 responses)
But as I showed in my response to the article, this is just wrong. The merging work is occurring in branches and anyone can follow the work there:
http://lwn.net/Articles/532945/
And did you even read the LO marketing director's post? He is even further out in left field, claiming that IBM never contributed code to Apache:
http://lwn.net/Articles/532694/
Posted Jan 18, 2013 4:29 UTC (Fri)
by shmget (guest, #58347)
[Link]
The Article said:
"That, of course, is an entirely non-free license header. Interestingly, over 2,000 of those files also have headers indicating that they are distributable under the GNU Lesser General Public License (version 3). These files, in other words, contain conflicting license information but neither case (proprietary or LGPLv3) is consistent with the Apache license. So it would not be entirely surprising to see a bit of confusion over what IBM has really donated. "
Sure... _nothing_ to do with license clarity... at all!
To summarize:
1/ IBM and Apache announce that they have signed a secret legal document
5/ So in conclusion IBM has granted a license to Apache to make some publicly undisclosed list of file available under AL2. but in the end it is practically still only available to IBM.
===
1/ IBM has a private Island in the Bahamas...
Posted Jan 18, 2013 5:15 UTC (Fri)
by ghane (guest, #1805)
[Link] (1 responses)
However, looking at the second article quoted above: http://lwn.net/Articles/532694/
"Please remember that Italian have invented fake donations back in the
If it *had* been created in AD 315, it would not have been a fake, would it? That's the whole point.
And now, back to your regular programming ...
Posted Jan 18, 2013 10:35 UTC (Fri)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:28 UTC (Thu)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (36 responses)
As seen in the case of the Oracle code drop this process takes a couple of months. IBM is not willing to do that for all the files (the simplest explanation is that they just don't have the resources to check every file they contributed).
In that sense the ASF is as much a third party as everybody else. Even though they have access the more legal files than other third parties. They still like the contributing company to make the changes necessary so the intended license of code and what the file actually claims matches.
They can nicely ask Rob Weir to check with his legal department and make the changes to benefit the wider community (and all Apache hackers), but they cannot force him or any other IBM employee/volunteer to do any of that work. In that sense IBM employees are as much volunteers as any other Apache contributor.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 4:34 UTC (Fri)
by shmget (guest, #58347)
[Link] (35 responses)
<sarcasrm>
Posted Jan 18, 2013 5:20 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (1 responses)
For example, when we reviewed the OOo code contributed by Oracle, we founds some errors and had to get them corrected with an amended SGA. Without our careful review, consumers of Apache OpenOffice, including LibreOffice, would have been worse off. For example, it would have introduced serious flaws into their rebasing of LO on AOO, and their subsequent license change to MPL, issues that could have caused them or their users trouble latter. So LibreOffice is already benefiting from our hard work in reviewing contributions. I'm certain they will continue to benefit in the future as well
If LibreOffice is interested in Symphony code (and they should be, lest they fall behind) then they should also want to see it carefully reviewed and brought into released form. That is in their best interest as well.
-Rob
Posted Jan 18, 2013 6:53 UTC (Fri)
by shmget (guest, #58347)
[Link]
Thanks for a good laugh... It is nice to see you keep an healthy sens of humour...
Posted Jan 18, 2013 8:39 UTC (Fri)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (32 responses)
IBM seems not very interested in the symphony code base anymore, they now have the (proprietary) IBM Docs (cloud based office) project. And clearly some people IBM assigned to the former symphony/apache project, like Rob Weir, have different priorities than helping out with cleaning up the legal uncertainties of the contributed files.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 12:33 UTC (Fri)
by shmget (guest, #58347)
[Link] (20 responses)
nah... they are very much aware. The the mail below from ooo-dev
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/2...
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:04 UTC (Fri)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (19 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:29 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (18 responses)
But if you wanted certainty, then you would write to Apache on their legal-discuss list, ask questions about the SGA license, read the README that is posted for the Symphony code and see that this is actually quite simple.
The license is in the SGA:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
The README tells what files are covered:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/symphony/trun...
If you are not willing to accept that, then you are like the Obama-doubting "Birthers" who harbor paranoid delusions about his birth certificate unless they can waterboard the doctor who delivered him.
Hack or complain. Pick one.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:37 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (17 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:44 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (16 responses)
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
Again, you seem to be harboring paranoia about what might be written on the reverse of Obama's birth certificate.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:48 UTC (Fri)
by micka (subscriber, #38720)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:59 UTC (Fri)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (11 responses)
Rob appears to be trying to imply that Matthew is as paranoid as the conspiracy theorists known as "birthers", who think Barack Obama was not born a US citizen (despite his birth having been validly registered in the city of Honolulu, Hawaii, USA in 1961, which is after Hawaii's admission to statehood) and so is ineligible for the Presidency. Tacky, Rob. Real tacky.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:16 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (9 responses)
On the other hand, there are some who actually have these delusions that there are secret exceptions and reservations ,and that this code was designed to tempt,lure and deceive LibreOffice, only to pounce on them later.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:47 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:02 UTC (Fri)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (7 responses)
Actually I believe you are both acting in good faith to clear up the self-evident confusion and that you two will have it sorted out shortly.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:16 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:24 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Jan 19, 2013 23:56 UTC (Sat)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (4 responses)
-Rob
Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:00 UTC (Sun)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:10 UTC (Sun)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (2 responses)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate
You took the position of someone submitting a racist screen to Apache, a position you presumably do not agree with, for sake of debate, to test the quality of the original argument, etc.
-Rob
Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:22 UTC (Sun)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:29 UTC (Sun)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link]
-Rob
Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:22 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
The imputations of bad faith to Matthew (without any evidence) are a nice touch too. I have no *idea* how Matthew has kept his cool through all this, but if working on AOO means working with Rob I can see why LibreOffice is taking off.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:49 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (2 responses)
What extra information does that list contain? If the information contained within it isn't relevant, why am I being asked to refer to it?
Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:05 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (1 responses)
Now would you agree that the status is clear, based on the README and the SGA license?
Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:21 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
1) Add an explicit link to http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt and the revision number in the preamble, just to avoid any potential doubts about whether "a Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License Agreement ("SGA ")" refers to the standard Apache one or a different one negotiated by IBM and the Foundation (in much the same way as "released under the terms of the GNU GPL" is ambiguous as to which version it refers to).
2) Add "These materials are contributed under the SGA" to point (2)
I think that those would make the intended copyright status completely unambiguous, but I think the change you've already made goes a long way.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 13:20 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (10 responses)
Imagine if the project agreed to publish (release) the Symphony codebase. That would require months of up front work, but would also be an ongoing obligation. We would need to provide patches and do CVE reporting on discovered security flaws. We would need to track bugs. We would need to respond to user and developer queries. We would need to maintain the code and periodically come out with new releases.
We were certainly willing to do this, if the project wanted to make Symphony be the new base for the OpenOffice project. But after examining the code and lengthy discussions, the community decided against that path and decided on the "slow merge" approach, to take enhancements from Symphony and merge them into OpenOffice. That is fine. I can see the merit in that decision. It is less disruptive to users. It keeps us on the code base that more volunteers are familiar with, etc.
But once that decision was made, it no longer makes sense to release the Symphony code base, and take on those support obligations. To do so would be to have responsibilities to maintain and support two different code bases, Symphony and OpenOffice. Double the work. Who would want to do that? Remember, the point of the Symphony contribution was to end the Symphony fork and concentrate resources on a single project, not simply to maintain the fork to another venue.
Regards,
-Rob
Posted Jan 18, 2013 14:01 UTC (Fri)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (4 responses)
But you seem to misunderstand what people are asking for from IBM. Nobody is asking for a full blown ASF blessed Symphony release.
The current status of the symphony donation is unclear because the file headers don't match the intended license IBM says they wanted to grant to the ASF and the general public. As you say yourself IBM might have made mistakes in their SGA list or the code dump. And ASF policy is that only the contributor of the files can update the license headers. Without that having happened neither other Apache hackers nor the general public can really legally (re)use this contribution. By cleaning up the file headers and double checking their legal status you as IBM would not just help the general public, but also your fellow Apache hackers to work on integrating and completing the "slow merge" sooner.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 14:31 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (3 responses)
Take a look at the README. The file headers tell you which files are IBM contributions, versus pre-existing OpenOffice files. And read some other, more perceptive comments on this same topic.
In any case, you seem to misunderstand what Apache projects do. We don't just take code, slap a new license header on things, hold our nose and toss it over the wall for public consumption. That is not how we operate. We're not the money launderers of the open source world. We do thorough reviews or we don't release at all. There is no Apache-lite release. I sense that you wish this were not the case, but it is.
And note that there is absolutely no issue for project members to touch the code. They already have. Indeed, with the Oracle SGA it took 6 months to clean up all the headers, and all along we were all working on the code base. So that is non-issue, more FUD.
Regards,
-Rob
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:11 UTC (Fri)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (2 responses)
The issue is precisely the indirect nature of the license grant. If IBM would clean up the header files that does give legal clarity (as opposed to anybody else changing those legal statements on the files).
People don't question the value of what Apache projects do. That is indeed much more than the single act of IBM clearing up the legal status of the files by cleaning up the headers.
Various Apache project members have stated on the mailinglist they feel not cleaning up the headers is a problem and they don't want to touch any of the files till IBM does that.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:32 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (1 responses)
You seem to be upset that we're not also maintaining a second fork of Symphony for the benefit of LibreOffice. Sorry, but no one has volunteered to do that. We're working on one codebase.
-Rob
Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:26 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:07 UTC (Fri)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (4 responses)
I'm guessing that there is probably legitimate disagreement on that point, there are many instances of code dumps where a dead project is released without any obligation for ongoing maintenance. The quicker that is done the quicker that others can pick over the corpse for juicy tidbits.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:22 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (3 responses)
It would probably be very unsatisfying to develop new fantasies that Apache will do this for the Symphony contribution. The plan of record, as decided by the community, is to merge enhancements from Symphony into OpenOffice and release this code as part of Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
Remember, Symphony is not an entirely different code base. It is a fork of OpenOffice.org. We're just rejoining the codebases and ending the fork.
If LibreOffice is truly interested in having "juicy tidbits" from it, then it is in their best interest for us to merge the code into Apache OpenOffice, where they can cherry pick from it, just like their ongoing harvesting of features from OpenOffice 3.4.1. It will be much easier for them to have one code base to sync from, then deal with two.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:33 UTC (Fri)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:42 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:54 UTC (Fri)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link]
Posted Feb 1, 2013 1:06 UTC (Fri)
by mema (guest, #89121)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 1:01 UTC (Thu)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link]
Lawyers don't like novelty. Novelty is always a source of uncertainty, and clients don't like uncertainty.
So if a clause reading "Trap no beagles forwards the staff quarters" appeared in the previous fifty contracts, then by default it's going into the fifty-first contract. That is true even if the other fifty contracts had that language purely as a result of a copy-paste error by a clerk. Because those contracts worked, and we want the new contract to work too.
Unless/ until there's a case where "All rights reserved" is found to screw things up for the client, no lawyer anywhere is going to go out of their way to recommend that you stop writing that on things /even though it now makes no difference/ and remains purely by superstition. If you're the client of course you can ask, and a good lawyer will say "Yeah, that's just superstition and we can remove it" but if you don't ask they certainly aren't going to suggest you go without the magic talisman.
It's not just lawyers, this happens on our home territory -- people who type "sync; sync; sync" for example; and in medicine -- NICE has a Do Not Do list, of specific things practitioners do that are not known to be effective but people do them anyway; and no doubt many other fields.
Posted Jan 16, 2013 22:15 UTC (Wed)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (19 responses)
Posted Jan 16, 2013 23:36 UTC (Wed)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (18 responses)
It is at least somewhat confusing. It would be good to have a clear legal statement from the ASF what the status of those files are. It would be great if the work could be freely reused.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 0:25 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 0:28 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 1:00 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (1 responses)
At the very least, this is making it very hard for someone to know what they can and cannot do.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 17:45 UTC (Thu)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link]
Since Apache pretty clearly knows that they're distributing the files, I assume there's an implicit transfer and inspection grant there, but I see nothing saying that I can modify those files, or transfer them to anyone else.
My understanding of the GPL is that if I write something, and give it to you under GPL terms, then you have most of the rights that I have, but nobody else does, yet. After the transfer, either of us can now grant rights to someone else (albeit somewhat fewer rights, in your case), but we have to actually do it. If neither of us took the explicit step of granting rights, then someone else who intercepted the transmission wouldn't legally be able to incorporate the code in one of their projects. I see no reason why the Apache license would be different; it grants more rights on an authorized transfer, but transfers must still be authorized.
As far as I can see, that's our present status; we're eavesdroppers on the transfer of code from IBM to Apache, and until Apache explicitly says we can use it, it's strictly their code.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 15:38 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (13 responses)
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/symphony/trun...
These files have not been published by Apache. When software is published (or as we call it "Released") it must first go through a review stage that involves verifying that the license headers are correct and that any 3rd party code is under a permissive license that conforms to Apache policy and that 3rd party licenses are properly noted in the aggregate LICENSE file and that required 3rd party notices are aggregated into a NOTICE file. Ultimately, a Release occurs when the project completes these reviews and votes to release.
I think it is pretty simple. Until code is released, someone dipping into Subversion for code is on their own. They project does not vouch for its quality, performance, security or license. That is why the release process is so important, and the checks that occur at that time. I think this is one important thing that sets Apache projects apart from others. We take the release process and the IP reviews very seriously. It is that process that puts the imprimatur of the project on the code. Until then it is caveat emptor.
In any case, I consider it rather rude for anyone to be poking around pre-release source code and then complaining about its quality. If you want to help, then help. If you want to wait for the release, then wait for the release. But please temper your expectations if you are going to play with pre-release software, not even beta yet.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:01 UTC (Fri)
by simosx (guest, #24338)
[Link] (10 responses)
I suppose you mean here that The project does not vouch for the Symphony code license with respect to third-party code.
If that is the case, then you should simply state it. That any code owned by IBM (All rights reserved to IBM) is distributed under the Apache License with the exception of any files that mention other copyright holders.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:21 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (9 responses)
It is not our process to encourage downstream consumers to dip into pre-release code, source or binary. Although we work transparently, the pre-release code is intended for project participants to work with, not for the general public.
In fact we actively take steps to discourage general use pre-release. For example, we don't send out notes to general user lists advertising developer snapshot builds. We only advertise that on internal project lists.
Remember, we take pride in the full review we give to our releases. This is part of the Apache reputation, the Apache brand. I don't think we should dumb that down and publish to the public "Apache-lite" code that is only-partially reviewed, for the benefit consumers who are impatient to wait for the real release, but also unwilling to help us get there.
Regards,
-Rob
Posted Jan 18, 2013 1:52 UTC (Fri)
by simosx (guest, #24338)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Jan 18, 2013 2:09 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (7 responses)
The point is that Apache projects do not encourage downstream consumers to dip into SVN to grab unreviewed code. All sorts of issues can occur in such code.
For example, I've seen code, submitted under SGA, that contained a proprietary Microsoft header file. It was an honest mistake, and fixed as soon as found, but it very good that this did not spread to other products, due to the obvious consequences that can come from it. (Anyone remember SCO?).
The fact that other projects may have less concern for basic hygiene and are more willing to accept risk does not mean that we should encourage this. IMHO it would be irresponsible to encourage others to download and consume unreviewed code.
In any case, I truly do appreciate your concern, and your recognition that LibreOffice would greatly benefit from code from Apache OpenOffice. But it would sure be nice to hear it from them, with a real proposal for cooperation, then have it be argued by proxies.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 18:16 UTC (Fri)
by simosx (guest, #24338)
[Link] (6 responses)
In any case, I truly do appreciate your concern, and your recognition that LibreOffice would greatly benefit from code from Apache OpenOffice. But it would sure be nice to hear it from them, with a real proposal for cooperation, then(sic) have it be argued by proxies.
Having read this, it feels quite toxic to approach the Apache Foundation.
What is your definition of real proposal for cooperation? You should blog about this. I highly doubt that you would accept any proposal unless you write it yourself.
Does the Apache Foundation have a process to deal with the polarization from the OpenOffice.org case? If not, I suggest to get someone be the contact point for the Apache Foundation in trying to resolve the issue.
Posted Jan 18, 2013 18:36 UTC (Fri)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (4 responses)
That's where we do business, openly and transparently on publicly-archived mailing lists. We don't resolve issues behind pay-walls.
As for cooperation, we (IBM) have reached out to the companies who do the vast majority of the LibreOffice coding, and offered to help them with the Symphony code, especially in the areas of accessibility and Microsoft interoperability. They said they were not interested.
So I suggest we try to leave hypothetically behind, and if anyone who actually has the ability and desire to do something with this code has a genuine question, then they can take to the Apache mailing list. But hypothetical from bystanders are not really interesting to me.
Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:34 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
If this is a paywall, it's a totally ineffective one.
Posted Jan 19, 2013 22:46 UTC (Sat)
by simosx (guest, #24338)
[Link] (2 responses)
LWN a paywal? In four days the article will be public and people will see what kind of bully you are.
You say that you are only interested in coders?
You end up being a liability to the Apache Foundation.
Posted Jan 19, 2013 23:36 UTC (Sat)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (1 responses)
As for building a community, I think we're doing fine. 50 new QA volunteers in the last two weeks, based on a promotion that I took the lead on. Coders will be next.
In any case, don't feel that you absolutely need to respond unless you have a comment on the article. I'm happy to answer questions on those topics. But I'm not going to waste time engaging in meta-arguments, i.e., arguments about the argument, by those who have nothing useful to say about the main points of the article.
-Rob
Posted Jan 20, 2013 21:59 UTC (Sun)
by simosx (guest, #24338)
[Link]
Your bullying trick now is to divert the discussion and make it personal.
What do you think the Apache Office community will feel if they see your comments? Do you object if I take the issue to the Apache Foundation?
Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:32 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:30 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 19, 2013 17:00 UTC (Sat)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link]
AS Roy explained in a response:
"The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."
-Rob
Posted Jan 16, 2013 23:59 UTC (Wed)
by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:16 UTC (Thu)
by simosx (guest, #24338)
[Link]
Under the Berne Convention, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Pro...
Free software depends on copyright; without copyright, you cannot enforce the GPL!
Therefore, when you search for 'All Rights Reserved', you must check that the GPL (or similar) is also attached to the code.
Posted Feb 1, 2013 0:50 UTC (Fri)
by mema (guest, #89121)
[Link]
Are you suggesting that the GPL is so viral that the copyright holders to not continue to retain the rights given them by law?
Posted Jan 17, 2013 4:35 UTC (Thu)
by jiu (guest, #57673)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 11:15 UTC (Thu)
by lmb (subscriber, #39048)
[Link] (1 responses)
Open Source at it's best indeed.
Posted Jan 17, 2013 12:34 UTC (Thu)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 13:43 UTC (Thu)
by tcabot (subscriber, #6656)
[Link] (3 responses)
From all this fussing over the Symphony code base you'd get the impression that it was a true MSOffice killer suite, and that both open source suites will get a big boost from incorporating it in their code. On the other hand, Lotus Symphony as a commercial product didn't seem to make much headway in the market. Is there a page somewhere that explains how the Symphony code will make OpenOffice/LibreOffice better? What features does it have to justify all this noise? Or is it just an excuse for two groups with some pre-existing bad blood to snipe at one another?
Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:38 UTC (Thu)
by simosx (guest, #24338)
[Link]
You can get a copy of the latest version from
The license for IBM Lotus Symphony is http://goo.gl/eyio2
Posted Jan 25, 2013 23:05 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
imho even WordPerfect SIX was much better than Word is today. For those who don't remember, that was a DOS/Win3.1 product - before even the Windows Operating System.
At the end of the day, "nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft". Until we can change that, NOTHING will be the killer feature you're looking for.
IF/WHEN LibreOffice/OOo can clone the "reveal codes" feature from WordPerfect that, imho, will be a killer feature, but not enough on its own to break the MS-Windows/MS-Office monopoly.
Cheers,
Posted Jan 27, 2013 16:23 UTC (Sun)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Posted Jan 17, 2013 15:18 UTC (Thu)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link] (1 responses)
Your article would have been much improved if you had taken a minute to ask anyone at Apache about this. As it is you have stated several things incorrectly.
First, saying something is being done in a branch does not mean, as you state: "that work is being done, we just aren't allowed to see it yet". A branch is merely a way to do preliminary coding in an isolated way without causing instability in the main trunk of the project. Once a feature is working and tested on a branch, then the merge into the trunk can be done with greater confidence. This is a good thing and is how larger projects can work on several features simultaneously while preserving stability.
In our case, the work being done in the branches is public and anyone is free to examine it: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/
You will see there branches for both the IAccesibility2 integration as well as the sidebar UI enhancements from Symphony, as well as other features.
Presumably this also answers your rhetorical question of "One might wonder why almost none of that work appears to be happening." The work in fact is being done, though by failing to ask us about it you also failed to see that the work was in plain site in our version control, in the branch, exactly where I said it was.
As for saying that 167 bug fixes are not "significant", I'd note that these fixes are mainly in the area of improved Microsoft Office interoperability, which according to our latest user surveys is #1 on their list of improvements they want to see. 100+ fixes in that area, taken together, is a significant benefit, and not something that should so easily be dismissed.
As for the "obscure internal process" Apache uses to review the code contributed to new projects, it is called "Incubation" and we have an entire website dedicated to it: https://incubator.apache.org/ How a new product is reviewed and prepared for release is described there in excruciating detail for anyone who cares to look. And all of this work occurs transparently, on public mailing lists. This is far from "obscure"
In the future, please consider sending clarifying questions to the Apache OpenOffice project. I think it would go far to improve the quality of Lwn.net articles. We have a link for Press inquiries right on our homepage. We'd be glad to answer any questions.
Regards,
-Rob
Posted Jan 20, 2013 20:08 UTC (Sun)
by rcweir (guest, #48888)
[Link]
Suggested reading: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
In particular we don't have a kind of leadership where one person speaks for the entire project, without discussion and without consensus. That is why you misrepresent things when you take one or two quotes off a mailing list, out of context, and without asking whether this expresses the will of the project
In any case, my comments on the AOO mailing lists, and indeed my comments on this article, are my own personal opinions. For anyone to suggest otherwise is inaccurate and misleading.
-Rob
Posted Jan 21, 2013 0:21 UTC (Mon)
by branden (guest, #7029)
[Link] (8 responses)
Thank you.
Posted Jan 24, 2013 8:20 UTC (Thu)
by aristedes (guest, #35729)
[Link] (7 responses)
The original article started the ball rolling with factually incorrect statements about Apache keeping stuff secret in branches (where the entire svn tree is in fact public, including the branches). And then posters continued to pound the same tired rhetoric again and again:
1. Apache should prioritise the review the legal state of the donation, so that it can be released under an Apache license as soon as possible.
2. Whether Apache contributors are working hard on merging the appropriate parts of the donation with OpenOffice is irrelevant, their first responsibility should be to provide a legal vetting service and release the code under an Apache license to the LibreOffice project (and others, but we all know there aren't any others). Merging code back into OpenOffice can take second priority to this.
3. Because the project is instead working on merging code to their own plan, then Apache must be secretive or malicious or something else quite sinister.
Have a got this about right?
It is perfectly clear to everyone here that the code has been donated by IBM. That some parts of it might still have license issues and Apache cannot currently make a blanket statement that it is all guaranteed to end up under ALv2. Not without quite a lot of work to check it all.
Do you think that all that is needed is Rob single handedly putting a note on the website to say "We release all this under the ALv2" and that he is not doing this to spite you all? The entire Apache Foundation NEVER releases anything under the ALv2 license unless it goes through the proper processes, is verified (quality/code/etc) and is voted on. This forms the core of the Foundation's reputation.
If this code is terribly valuable to LibreOffice, perhaps some volunteers from that project could step forward to help merge it into OpenOffice and where it will easily travel downstream to LibreOffice.
I've only come into this thread when the paywall was lifted, but it isn't the typical quality of conversation I've come to expect on LWN.
Posted Jan 24, 2013 8:51 UTC (Thu)
by jrn (subscriber, #64214)
[Link] (6 responses)
Likewise.
> It is perfectly clear to everyone here that the code has been donated by IBM.
Donated to the ASF, yes. All donated to the public (rather than just the parts that make their way to the openoffice.org codebase), not so clear to me.
Posted Jan 25, 2013 4:55 UTC (Fri)
by aristedes (guest, #35729)
[Link] (4 responses)
I'd say that is a fair assessment. If IBM assigned rights to the ASF, that doesn't mean they released the code under the ALv2 to the general public. Eventually the good bits will end up there, and perhaps you could make a case that the code was *effectively* released by IBM under the ALv2, but that would be for lawyers to argue.
Maybe the bad temper here is because the LibreOffice people thought that IBM should have donated it to them instead and now are stamping their foot saying "but we are the REAL open source office suite".
Posted Jan 25, 2013 6:48 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
I will also say that this is the first time that I've heard of a company donating code where the code is not then available in it's entirety, and you instead have a second layer of people (not the people donating the code) deciding what parts will actually be made Open Source
Posted Jan 25, 2013 12:40 UTC (Fri)
by bosyber (guest, #84963)
[Link]
Posted Jan 26, 2013 6:52 UTC (Sat)
by aristedes (guest, #35729)
[Link]
I am sure there are lots of similar situations outside of Apache (but I'm less familiar with those).
Now what "biased gatekeeper" are you talking about keeping code proprietary? What absolute nonsense. The entire purpose of all the people who work for Apache is to release code under a liberal open source license. There is no great secret conspiracy. If you see something valuable that you want in LO, then go and help the OpenOffice people integrate it into the code base which LO will merge at some point (assuming LO will continue as Apache OpenOffice with additional patches).
You are so negative toward the Apache volunteers working toward similar open source goals (mostly in their free time) for the benefit of both the Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice projects. What is it exactly you think the project should do differently?
Posted Feb 1, 2013 1:11 UTC (Fri)
by mema (guest, #89121)
[Link]
Posted Feb 1, 2013 1:29 UTC (Fri)
by mema (guest, #89121)
[Link]
Posted Jul 5, 2014 23:15 UTC (Sat)
by rdcalvo (guest, #97749)
[Link]
1) The codebase from Symphony was donated to ASF but this codebase is not being licensed "as is" to the community.
I see no reason not to license the codebase to the general public unless the terms of the agreement between IBM and ASF prevents this to be done.
A discordant symphony
Hmm...what does "all rights reserved" mean if not that, well, all rights have been reserved? I'm sorry, but I don't see how an IBM copyright notice saying "all rights reserved" can fail to conflict with a Sun copyright saying otherwise.
All rights reserved
FWIW: Wikipedia agrees with me: "It indicates that the copyright holder reserves, or holds for their own use, all the rights provided by copyright law, such as distribution, performance, and creation of derivative works; that is, they have not waived any such right." If it's on Wikipedia, it must be true...
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
Licensing is a form of waiving some rights, no?
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
Licensing a work doesn't take any rights away from the owner, it just gives a set of rights to someone else for (effectively) a copy of that work.
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/...
https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-moveoth...
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
And others have commented that the current situation is so murky that it is really hard to see who has rights to hack on and redistribute which files.
That is a pity. I think (IANALly) that the files have clearly been donated by IBM under the ASL, and that the contents of individual headers is not relevant since there is an overarching permission.
All rights reserved
Your comment is completely on target. Just wanted to say.
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
Your Contributions and such derivative works."
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
So he came up with a new twist on the so-called 'liberal license'... sure once you have it you can keep your modifications for yourself and distribute then under the term you want (non-copyleft)... but in order to achieve that you must come and work for Rob to integrate the piece you want into Rob's project of choice, before you can consider using that code for your own purpose...
Upton Sinclair -
I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935)
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The process and the paper trail was not designed for someone who wants to immediately fork the code. The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
We're not interested in slapping our license and brand on code, flipping it or acting as money launderers for the open source community. The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
No LibreOffice programmer has expressed interest in using this code, has said they lack permissions to use the code, or has even come to our mailing list to ask for clarification about what the license on these files is.The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
It doesn't matter if he's a programmer or not, and your inherent bias there is ridiculous.The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
Difficult on purpose ???
Wol
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
"Did you even read the parent article? It has nothing to do with "license clarity""
2/ IBM PR announce that they have donnated something called 'Symphony' under AL2 license. Since the document describing what 'Symphony' actually _is_ is 'private, for all we know, what is cover be a Basic Applesoft program that play Beethoven 9th.
3/ An IBM employee dump a bunch of files with random license headers.
4/ Rob, another IBM employee claim that none knows what's in it until some undisclosed uniquely qualified person spend the time to 'inspect' it.
Of course according to Apache's own policy, apache membera shall not touch the license/copyright header unless he is the owner... add to that that non-apache member have no access to the secret license document, so would be incapable of 'inspecting' the code's license in the first place. Which lead with the practical limitation that only IBM employees could safely touch that code...
2/ IBM announce in PR campaign that, in a burst of generosity, now the public will be allowed to visit the island.
3/ but... to visit you must first acquire the Island nationality, which can only be done via a Work visa and 3 years of continuous work on the island next to it... which happen also to be owned by IBM.
The OT trivia line forms on the right. Please take a number.
year 315, when the fake "Constantin donation" allowed the birth of the
Vatican State and the power of the Popes (which are both based on a
false document)."
--
Sanjeev
The OT trivia line forms on the right. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
Sure, IBM takes IP so lightly that they have published a software on the market (Symphony) while having no idea about the legal status of the source code of that product...
</sarcasm>
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
show clearly that it is deliberate.
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
I was not speaking of Matt. I was speaking of the post from the LibreOffice Marketing Director
Really? Then why, two posts further up the chain, did you say
Not at all. I don't for a second remotely think that Matt believes what he is writing. He is playing Devil's Advocate.
You clearly were speaking of Matthew, but perhaps you forgot this in a period of less than five hours.
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
You seem to be upset that we're not also maintaining a second fork of Symphony for the benefit of LibreOffice. Sorry, but no one has volunteered to do that. We're working on one codebase.
You keep on saying this over and over, but nobody else in the thread has suggested it, and several people have explicitly said that this is not what they want. Does license clarity necessarily require a fork?! If so, Apache's procedures are even more hidebound than I thought they were.
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status
Congratulations! [was: priority of cleaning up unclear legal status]
Congratulations! [was: priority of cleaning up unclear legal status]
Congratulations! [was: priority of cleaning up unclear legal status]
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
What about those files (the article claims a couple of thousand) that only have that notice and no license statement?
All rights reserved
For the curious, this is the full text of the README file at the top of the Symphony tree.
All rights reserved
Apache OpenOffice.org Contribution Readme file
Name: IBM Lotus Symphony Contribution to the Apache OpenOffice Project
Contributors: IBM Corporation
License: Apache License Version 2.0
License URL: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
This package contains software source code that IBM desires to contribute to
the Apache Software Foundation under a Software Grant and Corporate Contributor
License Agreement ("SGA "). A set of Third Party Library files are provided under
their existing open source software licenses and a set of Apache OpenOffice v3.4
file are provided under the Apache v2 license as well. IBM's contributed files are
based on the source code of IBM Lotus Symphony v3.0.1.
The files in the contributed package are in four categories:
1) Original Oracle owned files that IBM downloaded from the Oracle Openoffice.org
website - this includes both unmodified files as well as files that were modified by IBM.
The IBM owned materials are contributed under the SGA, the Oracle owned materials
are provided under the Apache v2 license. The total constitutes approximately 56,000 files.
2) IBM owned files. This constitutes approximately 12000 files.
3) Files downloaded from Apache OpenOffice v3.4 under the Apache v2 license. This
constitutes approximately 250 files.
4) Third Party Library files that are under an open source license. This constitutes
approximately 150 files.
Please refer to the list contained in the Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License
Agreement for more information.
Note: Files that are created or modified by IBM and contain IBM owned materials include
file headers of the following form:
/************************************************************************
*
* Licensed Materials - Property of IBM.
* (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 2003, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
* U.S. Government Users Restricted Rights:
* Use, duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp.
*
************************************************************************/
All rights reserved
All rights reserved
Stauts of these files
Re: Stauts of these files
I think it is pretty simple. Until code is released, someone dipping into Subversion for code [of Symphony] is on their own. They project [Apache] does not vouch for its quality, performance, security or license.
Re: Stauts of these files
What you wrote earlier is vague.Re: Stauts of these files
Do you not vouch the Apache license even for the Symphony code that is clearly owned by IBM? You said earlier that you do not vouch for the license and leave it open for interpretation.
You gave the impression that LibreOffice takes lots of stuff from Apache Office. This would be a good opportunity for LibreOffice to do the work and not depend on Apache Office.
Re: Stauts of these files
Re: Stauts of these files
The fact that other projects may have less concern for basic hygiene and are more willing to accept risk does not mean that we should encourage this. IMHO it would be irresponsible to encourage others to download and consume unreviewed code.
Ouch, Rob, ouch!
Re: Stauts of these files
Re: Stauts of these files
We don't resolve issues behind pay-walls.
What paywall? Anybody can contribute to this thread, paying subscriber or no, and articles in the weekly edition can be sent to anyone via the prominently displayed subscriber link at the bottom of the article. No articles stay behind a paywall for longer than a week in any case.
Re: Stauts of these files
If you are trying to build a community, then you are doing it wrong.
Re: Stauts of these files
Re: Stauts of these files
Re: Stauts of these files
Stauts of these files
These files have not been published by Apache.
I note that people on the apache-legal mailing list were saying the precise opposite of this only two days ago, that anything in SVN counts as being distributed as long as anyone at all can download it. You even followed up and agreed with that statement. All very unclear.
Stauts of these files
"general public". It distributes to our self-selected development
teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
distributed.
Just a data point:
All rights reserved
/home/git/linux$ git grep -i 'all rights reserved' | wc -l
5854
Don't know what it means though.
All rights reserved
any artistic work (like software) grants the creator full rights, as in 'All Rights Reserved'. This is automatic and you do not need to claim 'All Rights Reserved'. As the owner, you are in the position to attach a license such as the GPL, so that other can use your code (according to the GPL).
All rights reserved
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/4.0
What's all the fussing about?
What's all the fussing about?
http://www-03.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/home
In terms of the old OpenOffice, I think it corresponds to OpenOffice.org 3.1.
Make LibreOffice better
Wol
Make LibreOffice better
Easily avoidable factual errors in this article
Easily avoidable factual errors in this article
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
The difference may well be that Apache is more open and the code is visible even before integration, unlike many other free software entities.
A discordant symphony
A discordant symphony
2) Even if the ASF makes the terms of the agreement public (as "demanded" by some pepole) that DOES NOT configure the contents of the SVN repository (containing the Symphony codebase) as freely available to the general public.
3) In order for the community to take advantage of IBM's donation to ASF, ASF would need to release the code (not the SW) to the general public under a license. This could be achieved without touching any file header. It would be necessary to include a manifest indicating which files in the SVN repository are part of the licensing process.