Linked by Kroc Camen on Wed 1st Jun 2011 19:22 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Oracle and SUN "Today we welcome Oracle's donation of code that has previously been proprietary to the Apache Software Foundation, it is great to see key user features released in a form that can be included into LibreOffice."
Thread beginning with comment 475532
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pfgbsd
Member since:
2011-03-12

It seems pretty cool that OpenOffice will now gain developers from Apache and from IBM.

Now ... if libreoffice really wants to merge the codebase, they could just relicense their stuff under a dual LGPL3 and/or Apache license, so the best of both projects can still be merged or at least so that both projects will remain compatible at a source level for a while.

After all, it was libreoffice who forked so it should be them who merge back.

Reply Score: 1

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

After all, it was libreoffice who forked so it should be them who merge back.


Why would they need to merge back?

There's nothing inherently wrong with a fork.

Reply Parent Score: 4

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Two communities developing two almost exactly identical pieces of software instead of just one; makes both communities weaker and makes progress slower.

Reply Parent Score: 6

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It seems pretty cool that OpenOffice will now gain developers from Apache and from IBM. Now ... if libreoffice really wants to merge the codebase, they could just relicense their stuff under a dual LGPL3 and/or Apache license, so the best of both projects can still be merged or at least so that both projects will remain compatible at a source level for a while. After all, it was libreoffice who forked so it should be them who merge back.


The Apache 2.0 license is a liberal non-copyleft license. AFAIK this means that both open source code and closed source code can be contributed to an Apache 2.0 license project.

LibreOffice is licensed under LGPL v3. This copyleft license means that no closed-source components can be accepted.

So from now, open source code contributed to ASF OpenOffice can be adopted (and re-licensed as LGPL v3) by LibreOffice, and LGPL v3 code contibuted to LibreOffice can be incorporated into ASF OpenOffice (but it must remain LGPL v3, and copyright attribution must remain with the original authors).

I don't think the corporates (Oracle and IBM) want the latter to occur. I think they want the ability to make all or prat of ASF OpenOffice closed source. I'm pretty sure they don't want any LGPL v3 copyleft code where the copyrights belong to individuals.

Therefore, IMO, no re-merge is likely to be accepted by the ASF OpenOffice crowd.

Reply Parent Score: 1

flamefew Member since:
2011-06-02

ASF policy is not to incorporate LGPLv3 source as LGPLv3 isn't AL 2.0 compatible ( http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ). The same holds for closed source code; it would need to be under a compatible (ie: liberal) license.

LibreOffice can incorporate AL 2.0 code. ASF OpenOffice can't incorporate LibreOffice LGPLv3 code.

Note that the copyrights belong to individuals on Apache projects too. Any issues for users (the 'corporates') are likely to be around the LGPLv3 licensing; both the copyleft issues and the patent terms.

Reply Parent Score: 2