RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

+1 Yes, that is pretty clean, especially with regard to the tone. -Original Message- From: marcus [mailto:mar...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 14:10 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" Am 03/01/201

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

Am 03/01/2015 01:31 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 23/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: This is the proposed new version of http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html I've put the page online. It incorporates the suggestions made in this thread. The only significant changes are in the "Fo

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 23/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: This is the proposed new version of http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html I've put the page online. It incorporates the suggestions made in this thread. The only significant changes are in the "For Developers" section, that I copy/paste below f

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 26/02/15 18:34, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > The edge case is that happening where the settlement exceeds $10 million USD. > We're not talking innocent violation of license terms here, we're talking about willful violations, so I am in some ways unsympathetic. I don't know what current settleme

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On Friday, February 27, 2015, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 25/02/2015 jonathon wrote: > >> On 23/02/15 17:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> >>> I have to state it again: this is not the way I would have written the >>> page; it is a version of the page that preserves all terms we had on >>> that page.

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 25/02/2015 jonathon wrote: On 23/02/15 17:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: I have to state it again: this is not the way I would have written the page; it is a version of the page that preserves all terms we had on that page. If we agree on another version I'm very happy. Is there a need/requirem

RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

hat's why some FLOSS adherents consider permissive licenses to be corrupt. - Dennis -Original Message- From: jonathon [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 03:54 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Co

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 23/02/15 15:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > so it is odd to have a revision in hand while we are still deliberating on > what direction to take. The discussion popped up about three weeks ago, with Andrea volunteering to rewrite the page, but saying he needed the weekend to do so. It took hi

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 23/02/15 17:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > I have to state it again: this is not the way I would have written the > page; it is a version of the page that preserves all terms we had on > that page. If we agree on another version I'm very happy. Is there a need/requirement to preserve all the ter

RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

redistribution of AOO within an organization was acceptable. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 07:55 To: 'dev@openoffice.apache.org' Cc: 'Jim Jagielski' Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropria

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

Sounds good. Thanks for your work. I don't know if the last 1-2 paragraphs are still not "Apache-friendly" enough. Maybe it's better to avoid to state explicitely the anmes (and abbreviations). Of course, here others can judge better. ;-) Marcus Am 02/23/2015 01:15 AM, schrieb Andrea Pesce

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

Thx for the discussion and the work. It is greatly appreciated. With that said, I still don't see the need or rationale for the "##For Developers" section. Removing the last 2 paragraphs would go a long way in keeping the narrative closer to the kind of discussion and info that the ASF is known fo

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

jonathon wrote: On 23/02/15 00:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific actions by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and the Free Software Foundation (FSF): an ascertained violation due to inclusion of copyleft code in a proprietary pro

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

2015-02-23 8:43 GMT+01:00 jan i : > On 23 February 2015 at 03:41, jonathon wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 23/02/15 00:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > > > > > > > Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific > > > actions by the Sof

RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

ary 22, 2015 16:15 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" On 02/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: > I'll propose a rewrite And here we are. It is not the way I would have written it, but it seems a reasonable way to

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 23 February 2015 at 03:41, jonathon wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 23/02/15 00:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > > > > Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific > > actions by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and the Free Software

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23/02/15 00:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Copyleft licenses, namely the GNU GPL, are enforced through specific > actions by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and the Free Software > Foundation (FSF): an ascertained violation due to inclusion

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 02/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: I'll propose a rewrite And here we are. It is not the way I would have written it, but it seems a reasonable way to fulfill what I believe to be part of the OpenOffice mission (whatever people think): educating users to basic concepts about free, open sou

RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

Thanks Michael, -- Original Message -- From: RA Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 07:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" [ ... ] All licenses with a copyleft, even with the weak

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 02.02.2015 14:34, Simon Phipps wrote: > > That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking is > why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at > all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known for > compliance risks), whi

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

> On 02-02-2015, at 22:41, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 3 Feb 2015 03:29, "Louis Suárez-Potts" wrote: >> >> Simon, >> >> This is OT. > > What is? I am participating in a discussion of the page referred to > legal-discuss by someone else. My last contribution was a > question/suggestion in resp

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

2015-02-02 14:34 GMT+01:00 Simon Phipps : > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti > wrote: > > > On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote: > > > >> 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to > >> compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. > >> 2) Companies

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 3 Feb 2015 03:29, "Louis Suárez-Potts" wrote: > > Simon, > > This is OT. What is? I am participating in a discussion of the page referred to legal-discuss by someone else. My last contribution was a question/suggestion in response to Andrea. As far as I can remember, nothing I have posted so f

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

Simon, This is OT. > On 02-02-2015, at 12:39, Simon Phipps wrote: > > snip > S. Out of curiosity, why do you continue to support LibreOffice? After all, you visibly contribute to this project in at least a couple of areas. I haven’t checked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you were also a

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/02/15 14:59, Rob Weir wrote: > There is no mention of LO on this page, nor any suggestion of it. A thing does not have to specifically mention the target for the target to be understood. Even if, as you allege, there is no such target. jonatho

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti > wrote: > > > >> The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of > >> the above list would be OK, for example). It

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > >> On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to >>> compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. >>> 2) Compan

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote: > >> 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to >> compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. >> 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote: 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense. 3) There is a cl

RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

o:r...@robweir.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 12:58 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Pedro and Jürgen, > > It is important to be concerned about false co

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I didn't even know about this page, > , until I saw an update on > the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much > about it. > > Today, Simon Phipps has po

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

Am 01/30/2015 01:32 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I didn't even know about this page,, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Tod

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

Am 01/30/2015 01:32 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I didn't even know about this page,, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Tod

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

ect > that Chairs get on-the-job training in such matters. I surmise that the > charge to operate in the public interest and within the parameters the > Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is paramount. > > > -Original Message- > From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@ap

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> I didn't even know about this page, >> , until I saw an update >> on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think mu

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

me. Personally I am at Apache for the permissive license, others have their reasons. That they are here is enough for me. Regards, Dave > > > -Original Message- > From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 > To: OOo Apache >

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 01/29/2015 10:19 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I didn't even know about this page, > , until I saw an > update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and > didn't think much about it. > > Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

spoken to him in narrow circumstances, but would be curious if he’s also railed against, say, Mozilla, or Ubuntu, or any other slightly fallen angel. > > -Original Message- > From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 > To: OOo Ap

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

(re sending through the Apache relay this time ..) Hi Dennis; There is never actually such thing as "the voice of the project". We have our reasons for choosing a license and it's healthful to explain it's advantages but, at least in the US, in order to give legal advice you have to be a lawyer

RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

15 14:06 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" Louis, Summarizing on top, I didn't check the recent video from Bradley Kuhn. I think the objection is to the characterization of copy-left and conflation with the "cost of co

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

Hi Dennis; There is never actually such thing as "the voice of the project". We have our reasons for choosing a license and it's healthful to explain it's advantages but, at least in the US, in order to give legal advice you have to be a lawyer so it's understandable that the ASF has to step and

RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

org; Dennis E. Hamilton Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" > On 30-01-2015, at 15:36, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [ ... ] You seem to be disingenuous here, Dennis :-) Seems evident to me that speaking voice is AOO’s, not Apache’s. Which raises the question, how much rop

RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

defined for fulfilling on that is paramount. -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03 To: OOo Apache Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" [ ... ] I actually don't care about the discussion: I

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

Just my $0.02, Actually the page makes sense. What is happening is that a group of "free software" advocates see the advantages of permissive licenses, and particularly the success of the ASF, as a threat to their business. Bradly Kuhn in particular has always been aggressive towards OpenOfficea

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I didn't even know about this page, > , until I saw an update on > the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much > about it. > > Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/01/15 18:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kind

RE: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

t than the concerns that arise over "Compliant Costs." -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 10:20 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" I didn't even kn

[DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs"

I didn't even know about this page, , until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and l