The openoffice.org projects concerns me
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tadelste Aug 30, 2005 8:28 AM EDT |
Sun seems to exercise such tight control over the project, I wonder about it's long-term viability. Putting it under GPL would be a first step. But, I think it should also find its way into Foundation land like Mozilla, Apache, OpenLDAP, Gnome, Fedora, et al. What if Sun doesn't make it and they get acquired by Dell? What if Sun gets money from Microsoft to shut it down? What if Sun has another round of layoffs? |
| mvermeer Aug 30, 2005 8:37 AM EDT |
Putting it under the GPL is clearly aimed against IBM... Tom, I couldn't agree more. |
| incinerator Aug 30, 2005 9:04 AM EDT |
If you care about advocating free software, using the GPL clearly is favourable to the LGPL. However, I don't think that's the main problem here. Imho most of the trouble around oo is caused by the dual product and dual licensing scheme. Sun uses oo to publish the non-free StarOffice. Also Sun publishes OO under two licenses, the LPGL and the SISSL, the latter being non-free or at least not GPL/LGPL compatible iirc. That imposes a number of implications, one of them requiring contributors to sign the JCA, effectively transferring copyright of contributions to Sun. Thus, Sun remains in tight control of oo. As long as this scheme is going on it won't really matter much if oo is GPL or LGPL. You can see similiar "problems" surfacing with other dual-licensed projects, like Qt (see the opie/qtopia mess). I can imagine many developers don't want to contribute to a project if they have to give away the copyright to their code they wrote. It also allows Sun to play some tricks with oo, like releasing StarOffice that includes non-free components that could not be integrated into a GPL or LGPL oo for licensing reasons. Other trouble like oo2 depending Sun's non-free Java implementation for significant parts of the software doesn't help, either. One could fork the project by taking all available LGPL code and continuing from there, but would that help much? The LGPL is not preferable to some free software advocates, as it gives producers of non-free software opportunity to use their precious code. oo under the GPL would help much, as it would forking into a "real" free software project easier, but then Sun probably would change its approach in dealing with contributions anyway. Conclusion: GPL'ed oo would be a small step, but more important would be getting this dual licensing scheme and the JCA scheme out of the way, that would make oo "truly" free software. |
| incinerator Aug 30, 2005 10:10 AM EDT |
I just realised I fell victim of a misconception. Somehow it had escaped my mind that section 3 of the LGPL provides for a simple opportunity to convert any given LGPL'ed project into a GPL'ed one. That changes things, of course. Particularly the 3rd paragraph I wrote is more or less a forgone conclusion now. One could very easily convert oo into a GPL project. However, that would not change my conclusion by much. What would happen if someone took oo and converted it the GPL? Well, it would make the situation different for contributing developers. They would have a choice between two alternatives, one signing the JCA an giving away the copyright, the second one not doing so and therefore contributing to the GPL'ed fork only. The funny thing about that is, that the LGPL is only compatible with the GPL in one direction. You can link GPL apps to LGPL libraries because that is the purpose of the GPL. You can convert LGPL software into GPL software to make sure your derivative works stays free. However, you must not contribute GPL code into an LGPL project, as that would violate the GPL. That means Sun could not take contributions out of the GPL fork and put them into their LGPL oo. Politically, that may be a good thing, I would not mind if somebody did actually follow that approach. However, technically, this would be a disaster. Look at BSD, all the BSD projects happily "steal" code from each other, making each product better. Imagine Sun getting their changes to LGPL oo "stolen" away into GPL oo, without being able to return the favour. I guess they would not be happy about that. I could well imagine them think of something to fight the fork. Another problem is the availability of contributors. Afaik oo is lacking external contributors. Imho, oo would be pretty much dead without Sun pushing the project forward and contribution manpower to it. Would there be enough contributors for a forked project to keep it running? That's the big question, isn't it? |
| swhiser Aug 30, 2005 11:58 AM EDT |
Incinerator-
Quite helpful analysis, thank you. LGPL-only could be beneficial but raises two concerns: (1) it would encourage one or more (GPL) forks which splits the effort; and (2) it would still deter, as you say, individuals who are reluctant to make contributions that could be extended, even used, by private interests. Perhaps some observers on the sidelines here might be interested if people would explore the pros & cons of the Apache, Common Public License, New BSD, Mozilla or other alternatives to the GPL -- without advocating license-proliferation. They are all here (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php). |
| ralph Aug 30, 2005 10:56 PM EDT |
I see no reason to complain about Sun asking that contributions to OO also be available to them for use in StarOffice. That seems like a fair bargain to me. But, as a developer, I would be more likely to contribute code if I knew it would be available in a GPLed program. I would want the entire codebase to be available as GPL. That way, Sun could never take back what had already been released. They could always stop contributing, or end the project. But, if it was GPL, then any extant copies could continue to be freely distributed. I don't think that is the case with the current licenses. |
| sRiffle Aug 31, 2005 12:01 PM EDT |
I have to agree with Severian, "I would want the entire codebase to be available as GPL", before contributing to the project. The concept of a open office tool and or suite could be useful, but dominance of any organization, Sun here, with such implicit control, is at best strategically unsound (for other than Sun and/or its potential marketing partners).
------------- One need only examine the strings attached to Java, where the true potential has been squandered, or at least diverted, based on their vested interest and licensing schemes, despite the marketing hype "image" they try to project. The carrot dangling kept open efforts off course, but at least there is hope comming from the FSF projects. I think Richard Stallman clearly explains the perils and consequences of such implicit, or explicit control (if one reads the restrictions), in his April 12, 2004 article, on the state of Sun's hindering Java. see: "Free But Shackled - The Java Trap http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html " As long as Sun's tentacles still taint the ooo projects, the "shackles" will remain. That clearly contrast GPL's sense of "open" systems. --------------- The tendancy of the ooo projects to track Microsoft offerings is another major issue, to my way of thinking, which inhibits interest in contributing. I would like to see better ways of doing things, and getting a better handle on architectural and performance issues, with more coherency. Better planning and overall orchestration in a more open forum, not "guided" by Sun's ideas of mission statement or what the market needs. I see an analogy in Mozilla's more recent offerings, which "MUST" be MS-like. What a waste of effort, and misdirection... you are mimicing what needs to be replaced wholesale ! Where is the innovation going in a game of pseudo catch-up ? Indeed the primary mission statements of ooo, espoused by Sun, and so adopted, appear to be primarily to be more compatible with Microsoft, whereas we need to rethink the basic ideas! Is not OASIS a opportunity to break shackles and move forward (if some want to mimic, let them be the smaller effort). How do you win a race when you are focused on the other guy, rather than on what could be?? Even the Sun stamp on the startup screens, and other such latent tentacles are offensive to me. The manuals stillhave Sun references... Most software engineers and creative programmers, dont like to play second fiddle or do routines, unless there is some long term objective which provides incentive. The current situation, as expressed by tadelste, in this forum, begins to expose the uncertainty and the "trap" or uncertainty part. Perhaps the real question is "Why should we, the open GPL community, want to be subject to the whimsy or business interest of Sun and/or Microsoft, or any other such oddly entangled entitie(s) ? " --------------------- So, there are really multiple issues that prevent innovation, and that again, turns off alot of creative types, it is not just GPL compatibility. GPL only licensing, would however at least level the playing field, and remove the many undue implicit influences. IMHO, alternative license schemes are going down the wrong multiple forking track! It is like the recent US President's an administrations, having dug themselves into trouble, then diverting attention from the critical issues by having another staged event... How much time do we as developers want to be subject to reading the legal terms and conditions of yet another licensing scheme ? KISS Supporting a strong GPL community license would make a lot more sense, solve a problem and move on. The GPL is simple and clear, value must be real, unique and worth the effort, and compliant to the terms of the GPL, and accepted by the community, not an overseer with an whimsical agenda. Contributed efforts should NOT be rediverted into some alternative unfair, unequal use scheme, explicit or not. The open source, GPL, developer realizes that his valuable contributions can be to raise the overall state of the art. Proprietary add on's, complaint with the GPL scheme, must realize and accept that as the GPL movement grows, that there will be an associated timeliness to additions, and commercial companies need to understand that value is time dependent. The accelleration would be a function to the body of relevant GPL'd code and GPL based infrastructure tools. The hording and gold mining strategy of the patent collectors, must soon be seen as misdirected, wrt overall public good. The issue of raising the overall bar in exchange for what GPL brings to you is the central, but voluntary, social obligation, and yet somewhat altruistic. As a developer I would be willing to contribute to the GPL's technology, but not so if any other limited party would have a strategic advantage. To me the implict assumption that GPL offers is, that one uses the tools to perform some other revenue generating product or service. So again, one improves upon the tools, and contributes back as an obigation for the tools that allow the opportunities to be actualized. cf., if Sun makes the best hardware, then they should have a vested interest to cut internal overheads associated with that process... their hardware would then sell because it is the best. From an economic perspective, How much money has Sun spent on market cornering efforts? How much would have been spent had a GPL license been in place for the last 5 or so years? What might that have been spent upon in the core business? Similarly, a software vendor (solutions provider) underpinned by GPL, would be sufficiently agile to generate the best client solution to the clients domain, and possibly maintain them as revenue sources. We simply need too much software in businesses today, that sets limits for viable entities. There will always be room for leading edge stuff, way ahead of the core, but even those niches will, in time, become part of the overall base. I am against software patents, and restricted licensing. I see technology as needing to advance as fast as possible. That would encourage growth in economic sectors, and equally or more important from a developer's perspective, attract the associations among innovators of tommorrow. In fact whole idea of software patents today, seems archane, another shackle. I would encourage younger programmers and computer scientist to seriously think about moving beyond the existing frameworks, creeking with age, and supported by the old infrastructure, and flooded, uninformed patent legislation. That older, but current system, is under undue influences by the primary large industrial and unfortunately academic and goverment institutions whose interest are placing them in competition for what should be free enterprise. My message to developers is, decide what you want: "to what extent do you want your efforts to contribute to moving us all ahead, to sparking new innovation, to being excited about something that is intriguing, new vents for creativity" " Do you want to contribute to only commerically avant guard efforts, or do you see the necessity to contribute to strong central foundations... or some mix of both ?" ... OR "to what extend to do want be 'under the influence' of a bunch of overly restrictive legal constraints; frustrated in not being able to run with your own ideas; cramped by universities , govenment agencies, and commercial interest needing revenue streams ? How much of your time must be diverted to understand those complexities ? Now how much of your creative time are you willining to give away ?" Go climb a mountain an think about it. I would hope the answer becomes aboundatly clear, perhaps then you could answer the "Sincere Question". |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!