Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
Next » 12345678 « Prev
Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 5 Jun 2011, at 16:20, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
> 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.

Actually I am a TDF Member and have a long-standing account at OpenOffice.org. I have been associated with OpenOffice for about a decade in a variety of roles. I don't cut code at OOo, and I've not had cause to engage in many public discussions lately for reasons to do with employment transitions, but I am still a proud and eager supporter of OpenOffice.org globally with, I think, a good grasp of both its history and issues.

>
> If we want to turn this discussion into an ideological debate about
> copyleft and non-copyleft, then I think it's a mistake.

Hey, chill. As Sam says, there's no ideology involved, just choices. The last thing I want is an ideological debate because I already know how it turns out. That's why I think it would be far better not to keep making proposals whose most likely response is an explanation of how licensing is the issue blocking them.

> 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.

See Bradley Kuhn's rebuttals to Rob Weir[2][3].

>
> (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...

Which is what I said, yes. It's just how it is, no value judgements.

> I think most people
> are true pragmatics and choose the best license for the job at
> hand.)

While that's a true statement, different and reasonable people come to different conclusions about what the superset of possible "best licenses" available for pragmatic choice actually is. We are not all alike. Pretending we are starts bad arguments.

Really, what is so wrong about discussing how to get the two activities collaborating the best they can? Why is your only proposal "leave here and join us"?

S.


[1] http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/members/
[2] http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18558
[3] http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18807
--
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


On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Hey, chill. As Sam says, there's no ideology involved, just choices. The last thing I want is an ideological debate because I already know how it turns out. That's why I think it would be far better not to keep making proposals whose most likely response is an explanation of how licensing is the issue blocking them.
>

I'm chilling like a villain.

Sorry, but you *based* your conclusion of the inevitability of there being
2 projects on the *ideology* of copyleft vs non-copyleft.


--
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 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:

>
>> 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.
>
> See Bradley Kuhn's rebuttals to Rob Weir[2][3].

"You should only do that when there is a strong reason to justify it."

I see a number of strong reasons, should people decide
to do it.

--
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 16:57, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Hey, chill. As Sam says, there's no ideology involved, just choices. The last thing I want is an ideological debate because I already know how it turns out. That's why I think it would be far better not to keep making proposals whose most likely response is an explanation of how licensing is the issue blocking them.
>>
>
> I'm chilling like a villain.
>
> Sorry, but you *based* your conclusion of the inevitability of there being
> 2 projects on the *ideology* of copyleft vs non-copyleft.

I did that because the diversity of the world of FOSS is a clearly observable fact. You observe a different world around you?  I don't want to argue about it precisely because it's so obvious :-)

So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate?

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


On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

>> Sorry, but you *based* your conclusion of the inevitability of there being
>> 2 projects on the *ideology* of copyleft vs non-copyleft.
>
> I did that because the diversity of the world of FOSS is a clearly observable fact. You observe a different world around you?  I don't want to argue about it precisely because it's so obvious :-)
>

It is, agreed. Maybe I am just somewhat of an optimist
that I believe even pure idealogical stakeholders can find
common ground and that nothing is "inevitable".

> So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate?
>

Agreed again, and glad to see everyone discussing and negotiating
these proposals... and others!

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

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 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate?

I've outlined two here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@.../msg06542.html

I will also note that these options are not mutually exclusive.  There
could be a small core of close cooperation and a large amount of code
which could be the basis for the relicensing aspirations that I have
heard expressed numereous times on this list.

> S.

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

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 5 June 2011 17:15, Sam Ruby <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting
> proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate?
>
> I've outlined two here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@.../msg06542.html
>
> I will also note that these options are not mutually exclusive.  There
> could be a small core of close cooperation and a large amount of code
> which could be the basis for the relicensing aspirations that I have
> heard expressed numereous times on this list.


What would be interesting to know is how many of the core individual
developers working on LO that provide say 80% of the development resource
would be willing to work on code that would be under the AL?  If they are
doing it on their employer's time would the employer agree?  This would give
a better idea of how much scope there was for common code development. It
might be too early to expect to know this - some might want more time to
make up their minds and of course developers can come and go.  It just seems
to me that without this information we are speculating on things that are
indeterminate.

--
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

italovignoli italovignoli
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
On 6/5/11 6:14 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> It is, agreed. Maybe I am just somewhat of an optimist
> that I believe even pure idealogical stakeholders can find
> common ground and that nothing is "inevitable".

Hi Jim, I have posted a message on the general@incubator mailing list,
but I haven't seen it going through, where I was trying to point out
that no one has got the end user POV.

I'm first and foremost an end user, so I'm not concerned about the
license as far this doesn't allow corporations like IBM to keep their
predatory attitude vs end users.

So, my stance for copyleft is very practical: proprietary software
predates basic end users, like myself, obfuscating problems and code,
and I think that the only way to avoid this is to force corporations to
use copyleft (I know, they'll never accept, but at ths point I prefer
them to pay for all the development and related activities).

No ideology here, just a weak individual (like many) against a borg.

Ciao, Italo

--
Italo Vignoli
[hidden email]
mobile +39.348.5653829
VoIP +39.02.320621813
skype italovignoli

--
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

Italo Vignoli
Director - The Document Foundation
André Schnabel André Schnabel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Ian Lynch
Hi,


Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch:
> On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconi<[hidden email]>wrote:
>> Is it sure there will be a *product*?
>>
> I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there
> will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum.


Let me rephrase to: "Will there be a product named OpenOffice.org?"

I cannot answer, but as Gianluca mentioned Apache is more about a
project, not a product.  And considering the OOo dependencies to
copyleft components, it will be quite a lot of work to get something
that can be called "product" and behaves like OpenOffice.org.

It is obvious that there will be a product called "Symphony" .. but
"OpenOffice.org"?

regards,

André

--
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

Alexandre Silveira Alexandre Silveira
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by André Schnabel
2011/6/5 André Schnabel <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
>
> Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch:
>>
>> On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca
>> Turconi<[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it sure there will be a *product*?
>>>
>> I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there
>> will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum.
>
>
> Let me rephrase to: "Will there be a product named OpenOffice.org?"
>
> I cannot answer, but as Gianluca mentioned Apache is more about a project,
> not a product.  And considering the OOo dependencies to copyleft components,
> it will be quite a lot of work to get something that can be called "product"
> and behaves like OpenOffice.org.

I certainly believe that Apache will work to release a product under
the OOo brand. But it will probably take quite a while to get there.
In the meantime, components and other deliverables will have to
suffice.

Cheers,
-g

--
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: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Alexandre Silveira
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:38, Alexandre Silveira
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Another alexandre...
>
> I've been reading the discussion and i have a pragmatic question.
>
> Why ASF doesnt join to TDF and better Why TDF join to ASF using their code
> governance to develop one unique produticvity plataform called LibreOffice
> and that could be used commercialy when properly customized and licensed
> aggreed to be used as as a costumized version of libreoffice for a especific
> use ???

The ASF will only release code under the Apache license.

I believe the TDF will only release code under a copyleft license.

As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no
indication either intends to change), then I believe direct "joining"
of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find other ways to
cooperate.

Cheers,
-g

--
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: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 5 Jun 2011, at 18:42, Greg Stein wrote:

> As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no
> indication either intends to change), then I believe direct "joining"
> of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find other ways to
> cooperate.

Any idea what the best venue for that will end up being, Greg? Do we need to create a "collaboration forum" somewhere that's neutral territory for both ASF and TDF?

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

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 Ian Lynch
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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.

To run with your analogy, the problem is that your arguments are based
on the assumption that nuclear power is better than CO2 emissions, and
you base all your arguments on that assumption, when the group you are
trying to convince is made up of refugees from Chernobyl.

That was my whole point: you jumped straight to making arguments
without finding out what people think about assumptions those
arguments are rely on.  People won't accept your arguments if they
don't agree with your assumptions

This isn't a hypothetical point, I think it is the reason why people
haven't been receptive to your proposals.  Before trying to iron out
the details, I think it is important to take a step back and take a
look to the core areas of disagreement first.  As long as those aren't
ironed out nothing is going to get accomplished on this thread will go
on forever.

> 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.

It isn't just copylefters.  What about people who are more concerned
with making a great office suite than making a file format?  As I user
I am quite terrified by this paragraph, actually.  openOffice is
currently the only usable open-source office suite from my perspective
(although Calligra is catching up fast).  If the focus is on the file
format and not the program, how much are you willing to sacrifice on
the program to make sure the file format succeeds?

Once again, this is a pretty fundamental issue that needs to be worked
out before there can be any hope of coming to an agreement.

So I think it is better to just outright drop the discussion of
collaborations or merger for now and first focus on what the positions
of the two communities are these sorts of core issues, how flexible
each side is on their stances, and how these stances might complement
or interfere with each other.  Only then should you start looking at
how to proceed in a more practical manner.  It may be that something
radically different than what anyone is thinking now may come about.

For instance, LO has more experience with applications, while Apache
has more experience with projects.  Similarly, based on what you are
saying Apache seems more focused on the format while LO is more
focused on the programs.  Then perhaps rather than merging the two
projects or directly competing, Apache could focus their work on
making a great file format and a bare-bones reference implementation,
taking ideas from all the ODF implementations out there, and LO could
focus more on making a highly-tuned, full-featured office suite.  The
LGPL and Apache license, at least based on my superficial knowledge,
would also seem to be well-suited to their respective roles in this
system.  That way, the two communities do what they do best, there is
no conflict between them, no one has to compromise on their
philosophies or pragmatic stances, no one gets alienated from any
project, so everyone wins.

That is likely not the way things ultimately go.  It is merely an
example of an approach that people on both sides are likely to miss
because no one took a step back and made a comprehensive and realistic
assessment of the issues going into this process.

-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

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

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

sorry, please disregard this.  I got the subject messed up somehow

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:01 PM, todd rme <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> To run with your analogy, the problem is that your arguments are based
> on the assumption that nuclear power is better than CO2 emissions, and
> you base all your arguments on that assumption, when the group you are
> trying to convince is made up of refugees from Chernobyl.
>
> That was my whole point: you jumped straight to making arguments
> without finding out what people think about assumptions those
> arguments are rely on.  People won't accept your arguments if they
> don't agree with your assumptions
>
> This isn't a hypothetical point, I think it is the reason why people
> haven't been receptive to your proposals.  Before trying to iron out
> the details, I think it is important to take a step back and take a
> look to the core areas of disagreement first.  As long as those aren't
> ironed out nothing is going to get accomplished on this thread will go
> on forever.
>
>> 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.
>
> It isn't just copylefters.  What about people who are more concerned
> with making a great office suite than making a file format?  As I user
> I am quite terrified by this paragraph, actually.  openOffice is
> currently the only usable open-source office suite from my perspective
> (although Calligra is catching up fast).  If the focus is on the file
> format and not the program, how much are you willing to sacrifice on
> the program to make sure the file format succeeds?
>
> Once again, this is a pretty fundamental issue that needs to be worked
> out before there can be any hope of coming to an agreement.
>
> So I think it is better to just outright drop the discussion of
> collaborations or merger for now and first focus on what the positions
> of the two communities are these sorts of core issues, how flexible
> each side is on their stances, and how these stances might complement
> or interfere with each other.  Only then should you start looking at
> how to proceed in a more practical manner.  It may be that something
> radically different than what anyone is thinking now may come about.
>
> For instance, LO has more experience with applications, while Apache
> has more experience with projects.  Similarly, based on what you are
> saying Apache seems more focused on the format while LO is more
> focused on the programs.  Then perhaps rather than merging the two
> projects or directly competing, Apache could focus their work on
> making a great file format and a bare-bones reference implementation,
> taking ideas from all the ODF implementations out there, and LO could
> focus more on making a highly-tuned, full-featured office suite.  The
> LGPL and Apache license, at least based on my superficial knowledge,
> would also seem to be well-suited to their respective roles in this
> system.  That way, the two communities do what they do best, there is
> no conflict between them, no one has to compromise on their
> philosophies or pragmatic stances, no one gets alienated from any
> project, so everyone wins.
>
> That is likely not the way things ultimately go.  It is merely an
> example of an approach that people on both sides are likely to miss
> because no one took a step back and made a comprehensive and realistic
> assessment of the issues going into this process.
>
> -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

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 Ian Lynch
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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.

To run with your analogy, the problem is that your arguments are based
on the assumption that nuclear power is better than CO2 emissions, and
you base all your arguments on that assumption, when the group you are
trying to convince is made up of refugees from Chernobyl.

That was my whole point: you jumped straight to making arguments
without finding out what people think about assumptions those
arguments are rely on.  People won't accept your arguments if they
don't agree with your assumptions

This isn't a hypothetical point, I think it is the reason why people
haven't been receptive to your proposals.  Before trying to iron out
the details, I think it is important to take a step back and take a
look to the core areas of disagreement first.  As long as those aren't
ironed out nothing is going to get accomplished on this thread will go
on forever.

> 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.

It isn't just copylefters.  What about people who are more concerned
with making a great office suite than making a file format?  As I user
I am quite terrified by this paragraph, actually.  openOffice is
currently the only usable open-source office suite from my perspective
(although Calligra is catching up fast).  If the focus is on the file
format and not the program, how much are you willing to sacrifice on
the program to make sure the file format succeeds?

Once again, this is a pretty fundamental issue that needs to be worked
out before there can be any hope of coming to an agreement.

So I think it is better to just outright drop the discussion of
collaborations or merger for now and first focus on what the positions
of the two communities are these sorts of core issues, how flexible
each side is on their stances, and how these stances might complement
or interfere with each other.  Only then should you start looking at
how to proceed in a more practical manner.  It may be that something
radically different than what anyone is thinking now may come about.

For instance, LO has more experience with applications, while Apache
has more experience with projects.  Similarly, based on what you are
saying Apache seems more focused on the format while LO is more
focused on the programs.  Then perhaps rather than merging the two
projects or directly competing, Apache could focus their work on
making a great file format and a bare-bones reference implementation,
taking ideas from all the ODF implementations out there, and LO could
focus more on making a highly-tuned, full-featured office suite.  The
LGPL and Apache license, at least based on my superficial knowledge,
would also seem to be well-suited to their respective roles in this
system.  That way, the two communities do what they do best, there is
no conflict between them, no one has to compromise on their
philosophies or pragmatic stances, no one gets alienated from any
project, so everyone wins.

That is likely not the way things ultimately go.  It is merely an
example of an approach that people on both sides are likely to miss
because no one took a step back and made a comprehensive and realistic
assessment of the issues going into this process.

-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

Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:44, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 5 Jun 2011, at 18:42, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no
>> indication either intends to change), then I believe direct "joining"
>> of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find other ways to
>> cooperate.
>
> Any idea what the best venue for that will end up being, Greg? Do we need to create a "collaboration forum" somewhere that's neutral territory for both ASF and TDF?

No idea, actually. Probably something to just "wait and see". There
doesn't seem to be a strong consensus on any of the proposed ways to
collaborate, so until that happens, it is hard to guess what will be
needed. For now, subscribing to a few mailing lists seems about the
best approach :-)

Cheers,
-g

--
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 italovignoli

On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
>
> I'm first and foremost an end user, so I'm not concerned about the license as far this doesn't allow corporations like IBM to keep their predatory attitude vs end users.
>
> So, my stance for copyleft is very practical: proprietary software predates basic end users, like myself, obfuscating problems and code, and I think that the only way to avoid this is to force corporations to use copyleft (I know, they'll never accept, but at ths point I prefer them to pay for all the development and related activities).
>

Well, my opinion is that by having a non-copyleft version available,
it removes the incentive for commercial entities to create their
own versions, which will be obviously totally proprietary. Putting
it another way, if the only open source version is copyleft, then
you will not see commercial entities use it, simply because it
requires their own "secret sauce" bits to be forcibly donated.
So they won't use it at all and, instead, create their own from
scratch. And there is risk associated with that...

See

        http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html

especially the 'Why Apache Software is Free' version.


--
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

Robert Derman Robert Derman
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by marcpare4
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.
>
> We have a truly community oriented and supported product with great
> licenses as opposed to a restrictive ASF product. We do not need to
> join the ASF OOo project for code as we can include some of it in our
> product.
>
> Why join a product line that was left in controversy only to join
> another group with the same product that is now built on controversy?
>
I am basically an end user who just happens to be a computer HARDWARE
expert, the last time I did any coding was in college, and it was BASIC
on a machine running CP/M with a Z-80 processor.   But I have built many
hundreds of computers and I put a copy of OpenOffice on every one I
built after it became available as a free of cost download.


As I understand TDF and ASF have incompatible licenses, code from OO can
be incorporated in LO, but code from LO cannot be incorporated in OO.  
At least if OpenOffice continues under the Apache Software Foundation.  
That would lead me to expect that the two office suites will continue to
diverge until the point where there remains no significant compatibility
between them.


I also have been led to the conclusion that ASF is good at producing
software that companies will use, but not at providing anything for
individual end users.  I notice that OOo is still available for download
on Oracle hosted servers, but who knows how long that will continue.  
 From what I have read here over this weekend, it looks to me like soon,
probably by the end of summer LO from TDF will be the only viable choice
remaining for consumers to download.  Not that that is necessarily a bad
thing, so far I have seen TDF already do more as far as cleaning up the
code in about 6 months than Sun and Oracle did in 6 years.


Perhaps in the long run it would be best for those of us who have chosen
to use, contribute, support LibreOffice to simply forget about
OpenOffice and concentrate on making LibreOffice the best office
productivity suite possible.   This is my take from what I have read
here this weekend.  I am not about to debate the relative merits of the
two different types of licenses, from what I gather they really don't
make much differences to end users who can't contribute code, at least
not in the short term.




> This is the reason the TDF group left Oracle/Sun to create a more
> equal community. There is no point in participating in a group of
> unequals again.
>
> Let's just get back to what we are good at doing, leave the lurkers
> silent rather than giving them a platform (which is what they want).
> We are the community they wish they had.
>
> Cheers
>
> Marc
>
>


--
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
Wolf Halton Wolf Halton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by todd rme
I have been involved with OpenOffice.org since 1.1 or so, before .odf. I am
glad that Apache Foundation will have control of the code. For me
personally, the ownership of the code never caused a problem. I had good
experiences with all the Sun employees with whom I got to interact when we
moved the openoffice.org support web site and infrastructure in-house. There
were plenty of chicken-little discussion when we were doing it, however it
turned out well.
I wonder if we will be migrating the support pages to AF, and I have been
grateful for the generally gracious behaviour of Oracle. It is important to
not take any of these decisions personally. Larry Ellison never asks me for
input on his corporate decisions, and I am alright with that.
I think the question is how are end-users' experiences going to change
resultant of the code transfer to AF.  Linux users are being offered bundled
LO.  Is there any reason to assume AF will bury OO.o? I suggest there is no
evidence of that.

Cheers
Wolf Halton

--
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 » 12345678 « Prev