Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
Next » 123456 ... 8 « Prev
Cor Nouws Cor Nouws
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Marc Paré wrote (05-06-11 12:37)

> Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our
> great product
> [...]

;-)  True there's a lot to do. But I appreciate the interest of the ASF
people. They are interested in our views and processes and do answer
questions we have.

--
  - Cor
  - http://nl.libreoffice.org


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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
Ian Lynch Ian Lynch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 5 June 2011 12:33, Cor Nouws <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Marc Paré wrote (05-06-11 12:37)
>
>  Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our
>> great product
>> [...]
>>
>
> ;-)  True there's a lot to do. But I appreciate the interest of the ASF
> people. They are interested in our views and processes and do answer
> questions we have.
>

Sure, let's listen and learn and make informed decisions here not just react
to immediate emotion.  In the end if it ends up that there is no way to
resolve differences we end up with separate diverging code bases which might
be better than no fully odf compliant reference products at all, but let's
at least consider the alternatives. You never know, it might actually help
accelerate the great product's development and reach.

--

>  - Cor
>  - http://nl.libreoffice.org
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> 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
>



--
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

todd rme todd rme
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Sam Ruby-2
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is.  It
> is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
> of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
> with the larger community.  Direct participation in the development of
> that pool ensures that you can harvest that code back quickly and
> easily as there is no need to merge it with other changes that you
> held back.  Furthermore the extension points you need for your value
> add will be in the base.

The problem is that IBM hasn't done this, even with a copyleft license
that is supposed to encourage this sort of thing.  They have
contributed the absolute minimum necessary to comply with the license
terms.  Now the license terms are even looser, people seem to think
that IBM will continue to contributed the absolute minimum necessary
to comply with the license terms.  But now the license doesn't require
that they contribute contribute anything, so people here seem to
expect that they won't contribute anything.

> Part of this vision is also that participants don't block one another.
>  If IBM, for example, has a proprietary value add they should not be
> able to block somebody else from contributing substantially similar
> functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license.  Similarly, if
> LO has some CopyLeft value add, they should not be able to block
> others from contributing substantially similar functionality to the
> ASF under a more liberal license.
>
> Again, fully symmetrical.

I don't think you mean the same thing when you say "symmetric" as the
people here mean.  As far as I can see, you are talking about the
ability to use the code being symmetrical, while the LibreOffice
people are talking about the contribution to the software being
symmetrical.  You seem to be saying that Apache is symmetric because
if you use the software, you have to let others use it too.  But what
the LibreOffice people here are expecting is that if you make
improvements to the project, you have to let others make use of those
improvements as well.

Your talk about the use being symmetric is not going to convince
people because that isn't what their complaint is about.

They are fundamentally different and contradictory philosophies.  Just
telling people that it fits well with your philosophy, which is
essentially what you are doing, doesn't help when they disagree with
your philosophy.  You need to either convince them that your
philosophy is better than theirs, or you need to convince them it fits
with their philosophy.

-Todd

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Norbert Thiebaud
Sorry if you feel that way. I stand by my PoV that what happened
is, in some ways, a victory, even if not the one that TDF ideally
would have wanted. I understand that, and not trying to minimize that
at all.
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:40 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:

> "but a victory is a victory. Enjoy the rare one rather than
> look for next one ;) "
>
> a 'victory' ? going from a copy-left license to source-sinkhole license ?
> are you sure you are posting that on the right ML, or you just enjoy rubbing
> it in ?
> Yeah it is a victory for IBM, no doubt... and a nice departure middle finger
> from Oracle...
> Thanks Apache for lending a helpful hand... they could not have done it
> without you...
> Pardon me if I don't rejoice.
>
> Norbert
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3022088p3025719.html
> Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> 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
>


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by marcpare4

On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Marc Paré wrote:

>
> Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our great product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in Oracle's hands.
>

Speaking for any ASF lurkers here, I can assure people that we
are not here to change anyone's mind, nor to try to "dampen"
open conversation by our presence, nor anything else that would
prevent TDF from continuing to do what it is doing, and doing
it so well.

We are here simply to answer questions and, most important,
to address, and clear up, any FUD that could potentially derail
any cooperation.

Let's be honest, there's enough real-world issues that have
the potential to derail things; having to deal with non-existant
FUD issues is something no one wants to :-)


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Ian Lynch Ian Lynch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by todd rme
On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is.  It
> > is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
> > of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
> > with the larger community.  Direct participation in the development of
> > that pool ensures that you can harvest that code back quickly and
> > easily as there is no need to merge it with other changes that you
> > held back.  Furthermore the extension points you need for your value
> > add will be in the base.
>
> The problem is that IBM hasn't done this, even with a copyleft license
> that is supposed to encourage this sort of thing.  They have
> contributed the absolute minimum necessary to comply with the license
> terms.  Now the license terms are even looser, people seem to think
> that IBM will continue to contributed the absolute minimum necessary
> to comply with the license terms.  But now the license doesn't require
> that they contribute contribute anything, so people here seem to
> expect that they won't contribute anything.
>
> > Part of this vision is also that participants don't block one another.
> >  If IBM, for example, has a proprietary value add they should not be
> > able to block somebody else from contributing substantially similar
> > functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license.  Similarly, if
> > LO has some CopyLeft value add, they should not be able to block
> > others from contributing substantially similar functionality to the
> > ASF under a more liberal license.
> >
> > Again, fully symmetrical.
>
> I don't think you mean the same thing when you say "symmetric" as the
> people here mean.  As far as I can see, you are talking about the
> ability to use the code being symmetrical, while the LibreOffice
> people are talking about the contribution to the software being
> symmetrical.  You seem to be saying that Apache is symmetric because
> if you use the software, you have to let others use it too.  But what
> the LibreOffice people here are expecting is that if you make
> improvements to the project, you have to let others make use of those
> improvements as well.
>
> Your talk about the use being symmetric is not going to convince
> people because that isn't what their complaint is about.
>
> They are fundamentally different and contradictory philosophies.  Just
> telling people that it fits well with your philosophy, which is
> essentially what you are doing, doesn't help when they disagree with
> your philosophy.  You need to either convince them that your
> philosophy is better than theirs, or you need to convince them it fits
> with their philosophy.
>

Hi Todd,

There is a third option. That is that something you believe in needs
something else you don't believe in in order to be achieved.  It leaves a
dilemma. Some people switched a stance of anti-nuclear power because now
they believe it's better than CO2 emissions. It's not that they are suddenly
pro-nuclear. My position is that an open ODF file format ubiquitously
proliferated is the top prize. If that means using some licenses that are
less than ideal from a philosophy point of view then so be it. The ultimate
prize is too valuable to risk. I don't expect all "copylefters" to agree
with me but I think it is a legitimate position that needs consideration.


>
> -Todd
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> 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
>
>


--
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Simos Xenitellis Simos Xenitellis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Sam Ruby-2
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Sam Ruby <[hidden email]> wrote:
...

> I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is.  It
> is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
> of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
> with the larger community.  Direct participation in the development of
> that pool ensures that you can harvest that code back quickly and
> easily as there is no need to merge it with other changes that you
> held back.  Furthermore the extension points you need for your value
> add will be in the base.
>
> Part of this vision is also that participants don't block one another.
>  If IBM, for example, has a proprietary value add they should not be
> able to block somebody else from contributing substantially similar
> functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license.  Similarly, if
> LO has some CopyLeft value add, they should not be able to block
> others from contributing substantially similar functionality to the
> ASF under a more liberal license.
>
> Again, fully symmetrical.
>

What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
1. You start with zero community and you alienate the LibreOffice community.
2. You will start building a community at some point in the future in
some unknown way.
3. You are developers and can currently only deal with developer needs.
4. Your infrastructure is based on Subversion (SVN) which will make it
difficult
for other to share code. Git is not even in the immediate plans.
5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers.
6. The Apache Foundation hosts over 150 projects and I fail to see
any important user-centric software like OpenOffice.

The essential need for the Apache Foundation involvement in this appears to be
so that IBM can continue to offer a proprietary product, IBM Lotus Symphony,
License Agreement at http://pastebin.com/uqbUTRg5

Is IBM is trying to replicate what Sun/Oracle had with StarOffice,
putting just enough resources
for their own needs in order to ship their product?

The Linux kernel is an amazing piece of software that it used in 92%
of Top500 supercomputers,
all sort of servers, mobile phones, most TVs and routers.
And still, there is a single Linux kernel project thanks to the
copyleft license.
Everyone works on Linux because they cannot keep away their own contributions;
they have to share them with the community.
Even the ARM architecture, where each ARM licensee went their own way,
is going to get its cleanup.
Because the code for all of them is already in the Linux kernel repository.

IBM makes money out of Linux by providing services. And IBM is even a
top contributor to the Linux kernel.
Would IBM hypothetically prefer to have the Linux kernel developed
under the Apache Foundation?

OO/LO are in this critical point where they can repeat the Linux
copyleft success story
and help ODF dominate the document formats.

OO/LO is a complicated piece of code and will probably require big
architectural changes.
Having an Apache OpenOffice and a LibreOffice will slow down progress
in major changes.

Simos

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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
Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Assuming that these are question that you are serious about
wanting answers to, I will attempt to do so.

On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:

> What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?

A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
profit public charity. It is a legal incorporation, which has been
in existence since 1999. It is, as you say, a foundation with lots
of projects, in fact, most of the top 10 FOSS projects are ASF ones.
It has a proven track record, and a set governance and organizational
structure that is recognized and emulated within the FOSS and
non-FOSS (eg: government, health-care, etc) communities.

I would say quite a bit then.

So imagine the potential if the ASF and TDF worked together...

> 1. You start with zero community and you alienate the LibreOffice community.

I would submit that "zero" community is somewhat of an understatement.
As far as alienation, if the LOo community feels alienated, and I'm
not saying that they don't have every right to, why is it directed to the
ASF which never sought this donation, and from the get-go has tried to pull
in the LOo organization?

> 2. You will start building a community at some point in the future in
> some unknown way.

Please read the various posts and sites regarding the Apache Incubator
which describes how this is done, and has been done, quite successfully,
for loads of projects.

> 3. You are developers and can currently only deal with developer needs.

We are users and developers. Anyone with even a rudimentary awareness
of the ASF and how ASF projects work should realize that. In fact,
the very 1st ASF project, the httpd server, should clearly indicate that
it was as *users* that we used our developer skills to keep the project
going.

> 4. Your infrastructure is based on Subversion (SVN) which will make it
> difficult
> for other to share code. Git is not even in the immediate plans.

git is currently being investigated. svn allows others to share code.

> 5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers.

And why not?

> 6. The Apache Foundation hosts over 150 projects and I fail to see
> any important user-centric software like OpenOffice.

Agreed, if by "user" you mean "desktop end user." And the ASF has
been quite upfront in saying that this is an area where TDF has
some clear areas to provide insight/help/guidance, etc...

>
> The essential need for the Apache Foundation involvement in this appears to be
> so that IBM can continue to offer a proprietary product, IBM Lotus Symphony,
> License Agreement at http://pastebin.com/uqbUTRg5
>

No, the essential need is that Oracle wanted someplace with a
proven track record to donate the code to so they could then
be rid of it. The essential need to the community is an open,
well-established entity that is (hopefully) able to help the
entire community to cooperate and collaborate on such an important
piece of FOSS code as OOo.

> Is IBM is trying to replicate what Sun/Oracle had with StarOffice,
> putting just enough resources
> for their own needs in order to ship their product?
>

One could ask the same of Novell, but in any case that is
immaterial to the point. By building a healthy community around
the project, what IBM/Novell/Foobar "tries" to do is moot.

> The Linux kernel is an amazing piece of software that it used in 92%
> of Top500 supercomputers,
> all sort of servers, mobile phones, most TVs and routers.
> And still, there is a single Linux kernel project thanks to the
> copyleft license.
> Everyone works on Linux because they cannot keep away their own contributions;
> they have to share them with the community.
> Even the ARM architecture, where each ARM licensee went their own way,
> is going to get its cleanup.
> Because the code for all of them is already in the Linux kernel repository.

One could point to the success of AL codebases in the same way.
Ideological stances on licenses have a tendency to get in the way.

>
> IBM makes money out of Linux by providing services. And IBM is even a
> top contributor to the Linux kernel.
> Would IBM hypothetically prefer to have the Linux kernel developed
> under the Apache Foundation?
>

immaterial.

> OO/LO are in this critical point where they can repeat the Linux
> copyleft success story
> and help ODF dominate the document formats.
>

Even FSF admits that when there are competing "standards", a AL license
is the best choice, even compared to a copyleft one.

> OO/LO is a complicated piece of code and will probably require big
> architectural changes.
> Having an Apache OpenOffice and a LibreOffice will slow down progress
> in major changes.


One could also say that having both cooperate would greatly speed up
progress in major changes.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Michael Meeks
There's an important concept in Michael Meeks' e-mail that mustn't get lost:

On 4 Jun 2011, at 17:03, Michael Meeks wrote:

>
> The problem is, that very much of our work is inter-dependent, and we
> want people to be able to work all over the code, cleaning, translating
> and fixing it. It would suck giant rocks (through a straw) to say:
>
> "no copy-left lovers need think of working on X Y or Z
> big pieces of the code - since we want to license
> changes to these on to IBM (via Apache)" :-)
>
> At least - I don't want to just push the division down into the
> code-base, excluding people from lots of it (and of course throwing away
> our changes to those pieces).

The plain fact is that Apache's rules do not allow any section of Apache-maintained code to be licensed under copyleft licenses. That means that groups of people who have made the the equally valid choice to have their work licensed under LGPL will be unable to collaborate within the Apache community. As a consequence, any part of the OOo/LO codebase whose locus of development moves to Apache cannot be co-developed by people preferring copyleft licensing.

The folk who choose non-copyleft licensing simply won't be welcome at Apache. While the folk who choose only Apache licensing will be welcome at LibreOffice (since their Apache-licensed contributions can readily be used in the LibreOffice code), they will probably not be content with a work-product that's not Apache licensed.

Given these plain facts, I believe it is inevitable that there will be two projects. As such, I think it's important to get started on the "rules of engagement" for productive co-operation rather than endlessly arguing about licensing or the "possibility" that every developer with existing preferences will spontaneously change them.

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Sam Ruby-2 Sam Ruby-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simos Xenitellis
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?

Worst case: a code base that you can cleanly relicense to your choice
of license without any requirement to give anything back.  This
provides an opportunity to free yourself of constraints made by
historical choices.  AGPLv3 and MPL are both possibilities, as well as
a number of others

Ian Lynch described the best case here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@.../msg06533.html

- Sam Ruby

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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
Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski

On 5 Jun 2011, at 16:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Assuming that these are question that you are serious about
> wanting answers to, I will attempt to do so.
>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>
>> What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
>
> A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
> profit public charity. It is a legal incorporation, which has been
> in existence since 1999. It is, as you say, a foundation with lots
> of projects, in fact, most of the top 10 FOSS projects are ASF ones.
> It has a proven track record, and a set governance and organizational
> structure that is recognized and emulated within the FOSS and
> non-FOSS (eg: government, health-care, etc) communities.

Are you proposing that TDF could be the copyleft-preferring subsidiary of Apache, Jim?

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Sam Ruby-2 Sam Ruby-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Given these plain facts

Others have started with similar plain facts, but have since found it
productive to listen and even begun to indicate a willingness to
consider sharing the burden of development of core portions under a
liberal license:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTinXGRe96cJLB5B9m0HsEFYJo=hMCg@...%3E

As long as there are people open to this possibility, I intend to
continue to participate in the discussion.

- Sam Ruby

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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
Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simos Xenitellis
I have some disagreements with some of these statements, but I am a guest
here. I would like to answer queries and concerns, rather than attempt to
change opinions. In other words, I don't see a good way to respond to this,
if that's what you are seeking.

Cheers,
-g

On Jun 5, 2011 10:16 AM, "Simos Xenitellis" <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>...
> What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
> 1. You start with zero community and you alienate the LibreOffice
community.

> 2. You will start building a community at some point in the future in
> some unknown way.
> 3. You are developers and can currently only deal with developer needs.
> 4. Your infrastructure is based on Subversion (SVN) which will make it
> difficult
> for other to share code. Git is not even in the immediate plans.
> 5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers.
> 6. The Apache Foundation hosts over 150 projects and I fail to see
> any important user-centric software like OpenOffice.
>
> The essential need for the Apache Foundation involvement in this appears
to be
> so that IBM can continue to offer a proprietary product, IBM Lotus
Symphony,

> License Agreement at http://pastebin.com/uqbUTRg5
>
> Is IBM is trying to replicate what Sun/Oracle had with StarOffice,
> putting just enough resources
> for their own needs in order to ship their product?
>
> The Linux kernel is an amazing piece of software that it used in 92%
> of Top500 supercomputers,
> all sort of servers, mobile phones, most TVs and routers.
> And still, there is a single Linux kernel project thanks to the
> copyleft license.
> Everyone works on Linux because they cannot keep away their own
contributions;
> they have to share them with the community.
> Even the ARM architecture, where each ARM licensee went their own way,
> is going to get its cleanup.
> Because the code for all of them is already in the Linux kernel
repository.

>
> IBM makes money out of Linux by providing services. And IBM is even a
> top contributor to the Linux kernel.
> Would IBM hypothetically prefer to have the Linux kernel developed
> under the Apache Foundation?
>
> OO/LO are in this critical point where they can repeat the Linux
> copyleft success story
> and help ODF dominate the document formats.
>
> OO/LO is a complicated piece of code and will probably require big
> architectural changes.
> Having an Apache OpenOffice and a LibreOffice will slow down progress
> in major changes.
>
> Simos
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> 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

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps

On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Are you proposing that TDF could be the copyleft-preferring subsidiary of Apache, Jim?
>

I'm not proposing anything. It was asked "What can the Apache
Foundation provide to OpenOffice?". I answered. I've no idea
where you saw any sort of proposal about subsidiaries at
all.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Sam Ruby-2

On 5 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Given these plain facts
>
> Others have started with similar plain facts, but have since found it
> productive to listen and even begun to indicate a willingness to
> consider sharing the burden of development of core portions under a
> liberal license:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTinXGRe96cJLB5B9m0HsEFYJo=hMCg@...%3E
>
> As long as there are people open to this possibility, I intend to
> continue to participate in the discussion.

Your participation is welcome, Sam, but statements that have as their unspoken precondition that people with long-term choices abandon them are at best disingenuous statements that you have personally been censoring in the Apache forum.

S.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps

On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> The plain fact is that Apache's rules do not allow any section of Apache-maintained code to be licensed under copyleft licenses. That means that groups of people who have made the the equally valid choice to have their work licensed under LGPL will be unable to collaborate within the Apache community. As a consequence, any part of the OOo/LO codebase whose locus of development moves to Apache cannot be co-developed by people preferring copyleft licensing.
>
> The folk who choose non-copyleft licensing simply won't be welcome at Apache. While the folk who choose only Apache licensing will be welcome at LibreOffice (since their Apache-licensed contributions can readily be used in the LibreOffice code), they will probably not be content with a work-product that's not Apache licensed.
>
> Given these plain facts, I believe it is inevitable that there will be two projects. As such, I think it's important to get started on the "rules of engagement" for productive co-operation rather than endlessly arguing about licensing or the "possibility" that every developer with existing preferences will spontaneously change them.
>

Personally, I don't think it's "inevitable" at all, nor do I
think it the place for people to make such statements on behalf
of communities that they have, as far as I know, only limited associations
with.

If we want to turn this discussion into an ideological debate about
copyleft and non-copyleft, then I think it's a mistake. But just
recall that even the FSF admits that AL2.0 is the best license
where free/open standards are competing with non-free/proprietary
ones.

(PS: True, people who choose "only" copyleft won't be "welcome" at
the ASF (they would be welcome, really, it's just that the ASF
just does AL2... it's just an environment in which they might
feel as outsiders), but neither would those people who choose
"only" non-copyleft feel welcome at TDF... I think most people
are true pragmatics and choose the best license for the job at
hand.)


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Augustine Souza Augustine Souza
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Ian Lynch
Ian Lynch <[hidden email]>,

Could you trim your signature? Could you just quote relevant parts of
others' posts?

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps

On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Your participation is welcome, Sam, but statements that have as their unspoken precondition that people with long-term choices abandon them are at best disingenuous statements that you have personally been censoring in the Apache forum.
>

I think we all agree that the game has changed. There are
now options open and available to LOo and OOo that, until
a week ago did not exist. Maybe some of those long-term
choices were based on facts or conditions that have changed
significantly enough to be re-investigated.

I have made some long-term choices regarding my retirement.
Tomorrow, should I win a $200M lottery, or suddenly discover
that I have cancer, I would certainly re-look at those choices
which I made... Is that "abandoning" them? Or re-evaluating
them?

Cheers!
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Gianluca Turconi-4 Gianluca Turconi-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Ian Lynch
2011/6/5 Ian Lynch <[hidden email]>

There is a third option. That is that something you believe in needs
> something else you don't believe in in order to be achieved.  It leaves a
> dilemma. Some people switched a stance of anti-nuclear power because now
> they believe it's better than CO2 emissions. It's not that they are
> suddenly
> pro-nuclear. My position is that an open ODF file format ubiquitously
> proliferated is the top prize. If that means using some licenses that are
> less than ideal from a philosophy point of view then so be it.
>

Indeed, the more applications support ODF, the better is for the diffusion
of the standard.

It seems you imply with your statement that the only solution for TDF (or
Apache OOo) in order to avoid market irrelevance is to unite forces and, for
copyleft supporters, to bear a different and less palatable license.

Maybe you're right, but maybe diversity is instead the right answer against
market irrelevance.

Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Marvin Humphrey Marvin Humphrey
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simos Xenitellis
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 05:15:38PM +0300, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> 5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers.

In order for a podling to graduate from the Apache Incubator and become a
"top-level" Apache project, it must demonstrate that it has a healthy
community which will ensure the long term viability of the project.  The
Incubator PMC will not vote to approve graduation unless:

  * The project has enough contributors to keep it going.
  * The contributors are diverse enough that the project can withstand the
    withdrawl of any single entity.

Entry into the Incubator has a lower criteria.  An Incubator podling does not
need to start with a diverse community, nor does it need to start with a large
one.  It just has to persuade the Incubator PMC that it has a good shot.

> The essential need for the Apache Foundation involvement in this appears to be
> so that IBM can continue to offer a proprietary product, IBM Lotus Symphony,
> License Agreement at http://pastebin.com/uqbUTRg5

The Incubator has been provided with a draft proposal, which is looking good.
Multiple members of the Incubator PMC have already stated that they do not
believe there is any reason to deny the OOo podling entry into the Incubator.
The proposal is consistent with the ASF's mission, and though there is much
work to do, the podling looks like it will get off the ground.

Apache is a "do-ocracy" -- the people who contribute the most to a project get
the strongest say in a project's governance.  It would be difficult for
someone on the Incubator PMC to look at what is before them and decide that
they must obstruct it.

Marvin Humphrey


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
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

Next » 123456 ... 8 « Prev