Lotus Symphony
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| zigzag Jun 03, 2011 7:12 PM EDT |
Ibm is using a lot of spin on this, but the story is very simple. The coders wrote the code to a copyleft license. Sun used copyright assignment. This meant they could change the license and IBM was able to re-use OO.o code in Lotus Symphony. LibreOffice doesn't use copyright assignment, so IBM can't relicense the code and re-use it in Lotus Symphony. If OO.o is relicensed under an Apache licence, IBM can use it in Lotus Symphony. The rest is spin. |
| jdixon Jun 03, 2011 10:22 PM EDT |
Exactly. Of course, no one in their right mind would want to use Symphony, but that's beside the point. |
| DrGeoffrey Jun 03, 2011 10:51 PM EDT |
After all the trouble I've had with MS Windows and MS Office, if Symphony were my only other option, I'd use it. |
| jdixon Jun 04, 2011 9:23 AM EDT |
> ...if Symphony were my only other option, I'd use it. Fortunately, it's not. :) |
| DrGeoffrey Jun 04, 2011 9:34 AM EDT |
Agreed. |
| jdixon Jun 04, 2011 9:45 AM EDT |
And comments by the IBM folks in more recent hours merely underscore this fact. In this post by Rob Weir, recently linked to by LXer, their opinion of Libre Office comes across probably better than they intended, especially in the responses to the comments: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html This LXer thread makes similar points: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/31812/ |
| DrGeoffrey Jun 04, 2011 10:36 AM EDT |
I have followed those discussions with great interest, and one point has become very clear to me: IBM still, STILL, does not understand FOSS. |
| tracyanne Jun 04, 2011 7:42 PM EDT |
After having read Rob Wier's comments and responses to comments, I'd say this is very much a suits friendly set up. Very clearly IBM's representative doesn't like The Document Foundation. However I can't see how TDF and LibreOffice can lose, Software licensed under the ASF licensence can be used in LibreOffice, but not all software used by LibreOffice can be used by the ASF sponsored OpenOffice, or by the suits. Libre Office will continue to adavance faster.. unless a whole bunch of developers have a brain fart and even then, as far as I can tell it would have to be irriplaceable core people. In the end I think this is all corporate shit stiring. |
| zigzag Jun 04, 2011 8:57 PM EDT |
The real hope is that Apache doesn't allow this project through its incubator process. The project (to have OO.o licensed under Apache) is divisive, only exists to further the interests of IBM, and isn't a real fit for the Apache community. IBM and Oracle have leverage over Apache because of Java licensing issues, and IBM may have some leverage over Oracle for the same reasons, but if the LibreOffice community stands firm and Apache caves into the pressures of IBM and Oracle it sends out a negative message about Apache to other developer communities. Why would Apache go through with this? |
| BernardSwiss Jun 05, 2011 7:53 PM EDT |
Why would Apache go through with this? That's an easy one -- they simply prefer "open source", "permissive" licenses to GPL, "copyleft", "free software" licences. On principle. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 06, 2011 5:56 AM EDT |
@BernardSwiss: No, that's why they started it. They won't promote OOo from incubator to top-level project on that merit alone. If only IBM and Oracle peeps are working on OOo at AFS and the rest of the community is working on LO and TDF then I think OOo will die in the incubation process. |
| cr Jun 06, 2011 8:35 AM EDT |
Quoting: IBM still, STILL, does not understand FOSS I'll just make one observation here. My sentiments are with the copyleft side, but, I can see how, from IBM's viewpoint, they're preserving the status quo here, at some cost and effort at playing nice with open-source. When Sun owned the OO codebase, the world could get at it under copyleft and, since there was copyright assignment on contributions, IBM could get at it under non-copyleft terms by shelling out cash for a private license. Thus they could keep their value-add code to themselves and everybody thought this was cool. Oracle bought Sun and let OO drift long enough to freak out contributors because they were beneath their notice, because, according to Larry, he loves open source because he 'can just take it' and, as owner of the codebase, he had already taken it, paid for it in fact, so he owned it and could do whatever he wanted with it, including nothing. His yacht didn't need any play-nice; why should his OO codebase? TDF forked it, setting up LO under copyleft and making a good go of it. Suddenly, because Larry dropped the ball, the main thrust of contributing developer activity was happening where IBM couldn't import the patches without tainting all their value-add with copyleft, which was not the deal under which the Lotus Symphony product was built. Now, if IBM bought the codebase from Larry, they'd be left with a wilted codebase, because the devs moved on, and a PR black eye for trying it... So (maybe with some substantial IBM dollars paid out to Larry) Oracle was persuaded to push the OO codebase over to Apache Foundation, with its permissive 'copy-what's-left' license, where it's still open-source so the devs can come and play, but where IBM can still skim like they have all along. Status-quo-antebellum restored. Now the LO devs can still get at everything in the OO codebase, happily value-adding for all those funky copyleft types in Linuxland, and so can the business types, IBM in particular, without having to give away their value-add to competitors. IBM will probably send the cash that went to a private license before, into AF/OO as dev support, if not cash support, so their checkbook is probably doing some real play-nice. Now, if only they can get enough non-copyleft devs to put-up-or-shut-up... And maybe get those copyleft devs to just plain shut up; Weir just might be regretting the tone, at least, of his gasoline-on-a-fire inflammatory responses towards them in the comments stream of his blog. Darl McBride is the modern textbook example for sowing the wind like that, and what comes of it. (He actually got the world to cheer on the Nazgul!) (afterthought:) Plus, OO is still poised to choke off MS Office from total market domination, thus destabilizing half of Microsoft's money supply (at least in the eyes of Wall Street), so even those copyleft types should be happy with IBM for it (foe of my foe and all that). My opinions, of course. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 06, 2011 8:57 AM EDT |
@cr: I think you're hitting the nail square on the head. You should consider turning your last comment into a blog post or article of your own and join the fray. |
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!