On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> > Hi. >> > >> > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which >> > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. >> > >> > There are of course people who do not like the page because they would >> like >> > another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as >> > the page we produce are correct). >> > >> > There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too >> easily >> > be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. >> > >> > The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has >> > been added: >> > " >> > >> > *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or >> > advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of >> > licenses."* >> > Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the >> opinion >> > of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer >> > and being on the bottom many do not even read it. >> > >> > We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should >> we >> > have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to >> > the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk >> about >> > a lot of mails). >> > >> > I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of >> > discussions, and would prefer to see it removed....however a statement on >> > top of the page saying something like: >> > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" >> > would at least stop the negative discussions. >> > >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> >> What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? >> Maybe we can focus on the specifics? >> >> I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same >> accusation can be made. For example: >> >> "OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries." >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html >> >> Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC >> voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? >> >> >> And: >> >> "Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best >> value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its >> open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no >> expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with >> onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the >> software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any >> other channel of your choice." >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html >> >> Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this >> case to government users. >> >> >> And: >> >> >> And >> >> "OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial >> office software, but with none of the costs or license worries." >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html >> >> >> Same idea there. >> >> >> And >> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html >> >> This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an >> opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should >> we remove this page as well? >> >> >> I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or >> touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be >> odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects >> is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use >> in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to >> note that. >> > > To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and > know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression, > not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed. > > When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look > myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being > the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom line > carefully. > > I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really > not the discussion point. > > We have enough other problems, we do not need to create more....we do not > need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a > simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and > act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do. >
The current disclaimer was added after a discussion on the legal-discuss mailing list (public) to make it clear that it was not an ASF statement. As I understand it is now entirely a PMC question and there is no one who will "tell us what to do". > >> So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages. If you want a more >> prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine with that. >> > > I have no opinion on that the *all* part, if you think that gives a better > result then I am all for it. > If someone wants to suggest a disclaimer that can be put on all the "why" pages, then let's see it. Since it will need to be translated into many languages (all these pages are part of the standard set we translate for NL pages) it would be good to get final agreement before we make any more changes. Regards, -Rob > rgds > jan I. > > > > >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >> >> > rgds >> > jan I. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
