Linus gets it wrong again: The ASF does NOT require CLAs for "drive-by" patches. It only requires them for official contributors or committers, not for people providing patches on email lists, via JIRA, etc... Only when people have obtained the merit to directly change the official code is an iCLA required. As it *should be* for IP tracking. Double shame!
With Eclipse and Apache, the CLA is a Contributor License *Agreement*. It is NOT a Copyright *ASSIGNMENT*. Shame on Linus for spreading such FUD!
Ahhh... good ol' jagubox. I recall that old A/UX server warmly and credit it with my 1st real "claim to fame" on the Interwebs. But jagubox is, sadly, no more, having long ago been retired after I left NASA. There are a handful of mirrors around, last I checked.
Thx for the memories!
Here's a dime. Buy a clue.
First of all, Outercurve != Microsoft.
Secondly, I work for Red Hat, which is open as Open Source as you can get.
Thirdly, I am also on the board of Apache and OSI. Maybe you've heard of them.
Fourthly, your ignorance is showing.
Fifthly, Bananas are the Atheists' Nightmare.
Just to be clear, I did not "sell out" nor did anyone associated with Outercurve. It's a shame that little brains can only hold so much info before their lower intestines take up the load.
Why? A couple of reasons. First of all, it was the basis for Apache entering into the EC and the JCP. Our involvement was predicted on the ability to obtain TCKs for Apache projects. Secondly, the ASF was promised it, but then denied the TCK (actually, an *open source compatible* TCK), and that's simply Not Right. Finally, the goal of creating s/w is that it be used, and the lack of certification significantly hampers that, as well as opens the project to submarine patents. Think Oracle is going to sue itself?
Ahh, but then s/w patents aren't necessarily patents of algorithms. Lets define, exactly, what constitutes a software patent by defining what a "good" one is, and then we can debate whether the concept is OK or not.
The issue is that Oracle controls who gets the TCK and they put restrictions on it for Apache that they didn't put on for themselves (OpenJDK). Despite having a signed agreement to the contrary as well as agreeing w/ Apache back before Oracle bought Sun.
And yet, you are here as well...
Also, to be clear, even though I'm mostly associated with the ALv2, I hack and develop code under a bunch of other license as well, including GPL, et.al.
A license is a tool, and you pick the license based on how you want, or don't want, your code to be distributed, used and shared. There is no one-size-fits-all license, and your choice of license should be done with some thought, not based on who has the longest or bushiest beard.
Both the Microsoft Public License and the Microsoft Reciprocal License are Free and Open Source licenses (as determined by the FSF and OSI). The others ain't and so there's no need to use them, imo.
Typo: It should be the 'EC' not 'EA': Executive Committee
Well, the question assumes that Oracle would have donated OpenOffice to Outercurve... I think it's kind of obvious that Oracle wanted it to go to the ASF and that other options weren't on the table. Now this could be implied as a Good Thing (a sort of olive branch towards Apache after the Java fiasco), or a Bad Thing (let those SOBs at Apache take all the heat), depending on one's world-view and mindset.
IMO, the "community" is much larger than "just" the LibreOffice community or the old OpenOffice community. The various versions and offshoots of OpenOffice are all part of this larger community, and so the question also assumes that "the community" is just LibreOffice itself, which I disagree with.
In all cases, IMO Outercurve would have handled it similarly to the way the ASF did: accept the code donation and welcome any and all comers with open arms. What would have happened after *that* is anyone's guess.
Without a license, whatever code you produce is assumed to be under a copyright. That means legally people can't make copies, etc... A License is what provides the freedoms and openness required to allow people to see your code, share your code, distribute your code, etc...
That's why all those projects on Github that don't have a license are soooooo scary. Even though you can fork, etc, you have no real *rights* to do much of anything which the code. It's the license which grants those rights and freedoms.
Uh oh. He's onto us.