On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@oooes.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more > agreeable content on it. >
Why not keep it there until there is an acceptable replacement? Remember, this is far from a new page. It has been on the website for over 2 years and has been translated into many of the NL websites. -Rob > > >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Alexandro Colorado > Apache OpenOffice Contributor > 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
