----- Original Message ----
From: plino <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could
GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally
itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole.
Likewise, it could also distribute that same project to its customers,
the source available to them and them alone. The community will may never
any changes from them; yet that is perfectly valid under all Open Source
licenses - even the GPL.
Nothing forces people to work with the community. No license can do that.
please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth - aside.
So basically GPL is worth nothing because no one can force anybody to
Is that an argument in favor of convincing developers to use the Apache
license (because they aren't getting anything back anyway) or to simply stop
contributing to Open Source projects?
No. I am merely pointing out the fallacy in what we being said.
To many people assume that GPL means contribute back to the community when it
So to argue forcing people to contribute back under any FLOSS license is 100%
wrong, when the topic should be about the rights of the end-users - GPL
guarantees them while Apache and other permissive licenses do not necessarily do
so - in most all cases I am aware of they do not at all.
IOW, if you are going to argue differences in the license and reasons to go one
way or the other, at least get your facts straight about the license and its
implications. Then you can have a proper debate on the merits of which one to go
BTW, I typically lean towards using the GPL/LGPL myself. However, that won't
stop me from contributing to BSD/Apache licensed projects either - or even
projects governed by ICLA/CLA/etc (so long as they don't inhibit my abilities to
work on other projects under other licenses). Each license has its use; and each
community has their favored license. TDF/LO favors LGPL/GPL; Apache favors the
more permissive Apache License. So far as I am concerned, with certain
exceptions (e.g. MS Public License) as long as the license is approved by the
Open Source Initiative as being a proper Open Source license - requirements
being derived from the early Debian Social Contract - then what does it matter
as long as the users can make an informed decision? - that is, if they don't
like IBM Symphony they can make the decision to use Apache's OOo or any derived
product, or even LO (since you guys have at least expressed the concept that you
are truly an OOo fork and don't want to be seen as a derived product from
OOo/ApacheOOo). That is just me - and I know many on this list will disagree,
that is their right.
P.S. On the other hand, I get really pissed at companies like March Hare
Software, Ltd. that have taken open source - even GPL licensed - software and
essentially made them proprietary. It is very hard to move off of CVSNT to a
proper CVS install, or even to another system (e.g. SVN, git) because of the
changes they have made and the non-availability of the source. Yet, they support
projects like TortoiseCVS so that users can continue to use CVSNT.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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