Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2022 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Marco,

since you specifically asked me to comment -

Marco Marinello wrote:
first of all, I'd like to state for those that are not into the current
status quo that this proposal will mainly affect the "Online" project at
TDF's infra.

Conversely, I believe it would be wise to structure the atticization
process (and its reversal) independently of the LibreOffice Online

It is not the first, and not the last time, that code we host becomes
effectively unmaintained (for any number of reasons).

You further state:
In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the fact that I’m
completely unhappy with the “attic” proposal as a solution for the
Online situation and hope we can all work together to allow TDF to
still consider Online a part of the LibreOffice suite.

Let's please dis-entangle this (ideally discussing Online remedies in
a separate thread). You state you're unhappy with the attic proposal,
but don't provide any specific criticism (change this clause, avoid
that trap, etc). Is it that you would be fine with it, if --
hypothetically -- cppunit would become unmaintained? Or is there a
more fundamental problem with it, from your PoV? If yes, can you
suggest changes?

On the Online topic, I've got nothing much to add (beyond the fact
that the development from 2020 was rather regrettable). I'm also
biased (as likely you are, and others with strong opinion on the
question). Allow me one comment though:

Marco Marinello wrote:
Kendy wrote:
Marco Marinello píše v Po 20. 12. 2021 v 20:34 +0100:
I have already said this many times but I want to repeat it: it
has to be clear (and hopefully stated by legal contracts) to the
companies working in the LibreOffice ecosystem that they cannot
wake up one day and bring their development outside the
LibreOffice project. They cannot stay with one foot inside the
ecosystem, contributing to it, and with the other one bringing
their development effort outside. This is something the next
board should focus on.

Given that we are doing FLOSS (Free / Libre / Open Source
Software) here, I wonder how would you like to frame such a legal
contract, given that the "right to fork" is one of the basic Free
Software freedoms?  And what if it was not a company, but another
group (do you remember IceWeasel?)

IANAL so I have no clue on how this kind of contract could be
settled but I want to say that is quite logical that you cannot both
support and oppose an entity. In Italy, the law states that if you
leave your job and create a company that will do the same job you
were doing as an employee, taxes will be much higher.

This idea sadly runs counter to *everything* that matters for FLOSS
licenses and projects. Let's please put it to rest. Once the code is
open, everyone is free to take it, fork it, and do with it what they
please (according to the terms of the license, and perhaps by

All remedies I can think of are much worse than the disease you'd like
to cure. And for companies, it is trivially easy to circumvent any
sort of contract that binds a particular company, but not the general


-- Thorsten

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.