Questions from the sidelines.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Andy Brown Andy Brown
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Questions from the sidelines.


I seem to be really missing something in all this talk about the
transfer of OOo.

1: What would TDF do with the code?  At this point in time LibO is way
ahead of OOo in features and code clean up, from the patches flying in
the dev list.

2: What would TDF do with the OpenOffice.org name and trademarks?

3: Would they rename LibreOffice to OpenOffice.org? If so why, since
LibreOffice has spread like it has?

4:  Why is TDF trying so hard to block the proposal with ASF?  I guess
answers to the above will answer this one.

Thanks
Andy

--
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

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

Re: Questions from the sidelines.

HI,
On 06/06/2011 22:20, Andy Brown wrote:
>
> I seem to be really missing something in all this talk about the
> transfer of OOo.
and we really have work to do on our next versions, believe me,
talking/reading is really time consuming
>
> 1: What would TDF do with the code?  At this point in time LibO is way
> ahead of OOo in features and code clean up, from the patches flying in
> the dev list.

We don't have the code
>
> 2: What would TDF do with the OpenOffice.org name and trademarks?
We don't have the name and the trademark
>
> 3: Would they rename LibreOffice to OpenOffice.org? If so why, since
> LibreOffice has spread like it has?
Our name is LibreOffice.
>
> 4:  Why is TDF trying so hard to block the proposal with ASF?  I guess
> answers to the above will answer this one.
How can we block a proposal that doesn't exist for us?
Please, the proposal is made to the Apache Software Foundation by Oracle
with IBM benediction, ask them
1. What they would do with the code
2. What they would do with the name
3. Would they rename their product LibreOffice :p
4. Well, from what I can read on the lists, it's not us blocking anything.
Kind regards
Sophie


--
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
James Walker James Walker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Questions from the sidelines.

I believe he is asking

Why would we want the code to begin with at this point.

at the time of the fork, we already had all the code that was in OOo up to
that point, now LO has added more code, cleaned up a lot of code, and has
the backing of several large Linux companies.  So why at this point do we
need or want to go back to being known as OOo?

James

--
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

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

Re: Questions from the sidelines.

On 06/06/2011 22:54, James Walker wrote:
> I believe he is asking
I believe I was answering
> Why would we want the code to begin with at this point.
there is no questioning right now because their is no 'would' and there
is no 'code'. So as I said, wait for the real to discuss the 'want' and
back to work meanwhile :)

Kind regards
Sophie


--
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: Questions from the sidelines.

In reply to this post by Andy Brown
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Andy Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I seem to be really missing something in all this talk about the transfer of
> OOo.
>
> 1: What would TDF do with the code?  At this point in time LibO is way ahead
> of OOo in features and code clean up, from the patches flying in the dev
> list.
>
> 2: What would TDF do with the OpenOffice.org name and trademarks?
>
> 3: Would they rename LibreOffice to OpenOffice.org? If so why, since
> LibreOffice has spread like it has?
>
> 4:  Why is TDF trying so hard to block the proposal with ASF?  I guess
> answers to the above will answer this one.
>
> Thanks
> Andy


I think it is less about the code itself and more about avoiding
fragmentation and duplicated effort.  TDF would become of the official
home of OpenOffice.org.  Instead, what we are looking at one group
having the name and official control of the code base, and the other
having the vast majority of the community, developers, and
infrastructure.  That will confuse people who have grown use to the
OpenOffice.org name.

-Todd

-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

Norbert Thiebaud Norbert Thiebaud
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Questions from the sidelines.

todd rme wrote
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Andy Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
Instead, what we are looking at one group
having the name and official control of the code base, and the other [...]
Nah. they will get the trademark, or more exactly, for now, a grant to _use_ the trademark from Oracle.
They have been granted a licensed on the Oracle OO code base under ALv2.
but in no way does that give them 'official control' of _the_ code base.
It just mean that they just acquired _a_ code base, and that they'll be able to do whatever they want with it.

that does not give them 'official control' over anything we do, nor does that make them magically upstream....

in 6,12,18 months, whenever/if they graduate and some of the change they do make sens, we will probably treat that project as side-stream, to possibly incorporate sensible changes they may have done, that match with our overall direction.

We'll cross that bridge when it gets there, In the mean time, returning to our task to improve LibreOffice is the best service we can do to our users.

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

Re: Questions from the sidelines.

In reply to this post by Andy Brown
Andy Brown wrote:

>
> I seem to be really missing something in all this talk about the
> transfer of OOo.
>
> 1: What would TDF do with the code?  At this point in time LibO is way
> ahead of OOo in features and code clean up, from the patches flying in
> the dev list.
>
> 2: What would TDF do with the OpenOffice.org name and trademarks?
>
> 3: Would they rename LibreOffice to OpenOffice.org? If so why, since
> LibreOffice has spread like it has?
>
> 4:  Why is TDF trying so hard to block the proposal with ASF?  I guess
> answers to the above will answer this one.
>
> Thanks
> Andy
I have been reading the discussion the last 3 days concerning Oracle
donating the code and from what I understand the brand name.  From what
I understand the differences in licenses between The Document Foundation
and Apache Software Foundation are such that code in OpenOffice can be
used in LibreOffice, but code in LibreOffice can not be used in
OpenOffice.

 From what I have read it seems like it will be some time before
anything much comes of whatever happens at the Apache Software
Foundation, at least as far as any product for end users.  If this means
that OOo will stagnate as far as improvements and new releases is
concerned, and it seems like it will, then I suspect that most people
will switch to LibreOffice and OpenOffice will become irrelevant.

I might be wrong about this, but from all the good progress at TDF and
LO it seems like OpenOffice may become irrelevant if it hasn't already,
at least as far as end users are concerned.  I have heard a lot of
concern about duplication of efforts, but if I had to guess as to what
will happen, I suspect that most volunteer developers/programmers will
donate their efforts to TDF and LO rather than OO, or to both.  I
suspect that at some point within the next year the two software suites
will diverge to the point where they can no longer share new code, and
LO will need many of its own templates and extensions rather than being
able to use those that were written for OO.

Perhaps the single largest reason that Oracle didn't offer the code and
brand to TDF was simple hurt feelings.  Whatever, in the long run I
suspect that it simply doesn't and won't matter.  If anything I think
that this will cause TDF to gain more developers and supporters and to
prosper.

--
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 Boehm Robert Boehm
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Questions from the sidelines.

On 06/06/2011 06:32 PM, Robert Derman wrote:

> Andy Brown wrote:
>>
>> I seem to be really missing something in all this talk about the
>> transfer of OOo.
>>
>> 1: What would TDF do with the code?  At this point in time LibO is
>> way ahead of OOo in features and code clean up, from the patches
>> flying in the dev list.
>>
>> 2: What would TDF do with the OpenOffice.org name and trademarks?
>>
>> 3: Would they rename LibreOffice to OpenOffice.org? If so why, since
>> LibreOffice has spread like it has?
>>
>> 4:  Why is TDF trying so hard to block the proposal with ASF?  I
>> guess answers to the above will answer this one.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Andy
> I have been reading the discussion the last 3 days concerning Oracle
> donating the code and from what I understand the brand name.  From
> what I understand the differences in licenses between The Document
> Foundation and Apache Software Foundation are such that code in
> OpenOffice can be used in LibreOffice, but code in LibreOffice can not
> be used in OpenOffice.
> From what I have read it seems like it will be some time before
> anything much comes of whatever happens at the Apache Software
> Foundation, at least as far as any product for end users.  If this
> means that OOo will stagnate as far as improvements and new releases
> is concerned, and it seems like it will, then I suspect that most
> people will switch to LibreOffice and OpenOffice will become irrelevant.
> I might be wrong about this, but from all the good progress at TDF and
> LO it seems like OpenOffice may become irrelevant if it hasn't
> already, at least as far as end users are concerned.  I have heard a
> lot of concern about duplication of efforts, but if I had to guess as
> to what will happen, I suspect that most volunteer
> developers/programmers will donate their efforts to TDF and LO rather
> than OO, or to both.  I suspect that at some point within the next
> year the two software suites will diverge to the point where they can
> no longer share new code, and LO will need many of its own templates
> and extensions rather than being able to use those that were written
> for OO.
> Perhaps the single largest reason that Oracle didn't offer the code
> and brand to TDF was simple hurt feelings.  Whatever, in the long run
> I suspect that it simply doesn't and won't matter.  If anything I
> think that this will cause TDF to gain more developers and supporters
> and to prosper.
>
I am sorry for quoting ALL of the above, but I tend to agree with the
post from Robert.....

What IS all of this discussion anyway?  Why waste the time?  Let
LibreOffice forge ahead.  If some of the others want to join,
that's fine...if not, that's fine too.  LibreOffice is already ahead and
moving away from OpenOffice and is much better already.
Let's just concentrate on the "product" that we have and
develop/improve/release on schedule and not worry or waste so much
time discussing all of this stuff.  Oracle messed up and let's just
leave it at that.

Bob

--

Operating System:  openSUSE Linux 11.4 64 bit
Linux Kernel: 2.6.37.6
Desktop Environment: KDE 4.6.0
E-Mail Client:  Thunderbird 3.1.10
Web Browser:  Firefox 4.0.1
Office:  LibreOffice 3.3.2
ClamAV 0.97.0 for UNIX


--
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: Questions from the sidelines.

In reply to this post by James Walker
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:54, James Walker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I believe he is asking
>
> Why would we want the code to begin with at this point.
>
> at the time of the fork, we already had all the code that was in OOo up to
> that point, now LO has added more code, cleaned up a lot of code, and has
> the backing of several large Linux companies.  So why at this point do we
> need or want to go back to being known as OOo?

I think that the TDF may want the code in order to "rebase" the
licensing stack, to provide greater flexibility in adjusting the
LibreOffice package's license. According to the LO licensing
policy[1], the codebase is mostly Oracle's LPGLv3 license, yet the
desire is to move everything to a tri-license[2]. Getting a copy of
Oracle's codebase under the ALv2 license means that more of the code
can be shipped under all three licenses (LGPLv3, GPLv3,
MPLv$whatever). You can't change the license header away from ALv2
(like you can't change it away from LGPLv3 today), but the overall
package would have much more flexibility in its licensing.

Cheers,
-g

[1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy
[2] tho an interesting question: if the MPL was used to entice IBM,
but they prefer Apache, then it seems a reasonable to ask whether you
want to keep MPL as an option

--
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