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


Hi Thorsten,

On 12/01/2022 15:34, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Paolo,

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
On 12/01/2022 12:44, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
That seems unlikely to repeat itself?
You think no other commercial organisations are or will be hosting any
LibreOffice related projects with TDF or you think that the board in future
will surely spot that a project hosted at TDF with contributions mostly from
one organisation could create issues without having some rules set?

The latter.
As board members change there is a risk that some may not think to look at the issue, as it happened in the past, so I do think we have to set this rule/reminder.

I haven't yet evaluated where to write this rule but it should be clearly stated somewhere and be valid for all current and future projects, meaning that we have to have a clear view of what we are hosting at all times.

I've discovered only the other day that the Android Viewer is still maintained and that caught both me and Emiliano by surprise as we didn't have an up to date status of it.

Your proposed text for the policy _does_ constitute a default,
up-front requirement. Perhaps it needs rewording then, to better carry
your intended meaning?
I'm not sure if there is a language barrier here and/or I haven't yet
expressed the concept clearly enough.

The point is that the letter of your proposal does not match what you
say.

For a final policy, it doesn't matter what people state in an email
discussion; what counts is what's in the policy text. So please update
that text, for this conversation to remain effective.

I stand by the text I wrote and that apparently you didn't find contradicting what I previously stated:

"> That should be added in the "## De-atticization requirements. The form could
> be along the line of:
>
> - If the parties involved in the development of the project are commercial
> entities an agreement must be signed to make clear the final scope, the
> benefits to the community and the eventual limitations in publishing it
> following TDF's objectives.
>
Thanks for the crisp write-up! That's indeed something I can work and
interact with."

Maybe we can improve the text but to me it still means that people/individual contributors don't have any particular burden but clearly commercial entities must sign an agreement and that has been my point from the beginning and during the whole thread.

As stated a few times it should be a welcome improvement also for corporate contributors as at least they have clear guidelines to plan long term while we know we invest in a project that will leave a value for the community to benefit from.
Best,

-- Thorsten
Ciao

Paolo

--
Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Context


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.