Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies.
Laurence On 05/06/2011, at 8:41, Christian Lohmaier <lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi Allen, *, > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer <pulsi...@openoffice.org> > wrote: >> [...] >> I don't know what vision IBM has for the project. I don't know what code >> contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I >> don't know what they will be. I don't know what contributions members of >> the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make. > > Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press > releases, that was ended up in OOo was basically nonexistent. As > you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can > probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before > switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip > service. > > The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from > contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that > Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and > he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/ > needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing > it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete > branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!)) > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support > >> I do know this however. There is currently an open invitation for us to get >> involved. If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the >> project. > > Not really, as you first have to "surrender" to the Apache's licence > terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort. > >> We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum >> benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM. >> Basically, we can get IBM working for us. > > I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive > licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing? > They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working > on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to > ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the > abovementioned accessibility dump. > > But before you say: It's not only IBM in the foundation. Then let me > ask: Who else is? Oracle is gone for good. The few individual > contributers that have enlisted themselves as initial contributers on > the apache wiki are to a big extent non-coder. (Not to say that the > non-code contributors are not important, that's far from being my > point) > I currently find 5 people in that list of whom I'd say the have /some/ > idea of the code. And two of those already have a focus on a > side-project/fork of OOo. > > So if you ask me who is on the Apache project who is not engaged in > TDF/LO, then the only answer is: IBM. > (But I'm also well aware that the proposal is new, and there might be > more to come, and I'm also aware that to the apache-voting the big > picture doesn't matter, they don't care whether it is considered a > good idea or not. If there are enough people to run the podling and if > IBM can convince them that it is possible to get rid of all the > thirdparty stuff that doesn't comply with the strict licencing terms, > they will approve it as an incubator project) > > And I don't really see a point in shifting this perception "now that > nobody cares who enlists". > IMHO you only should enlist yourself if you're really convinced that > the Apache Foundation along with its restrictions/limitations and > rules, esp. regarding licencing are a good idea, when you actually > support the move. > > If you do, then go ahead and add yourself, I won't question your decision. > > The only "reason" on why the TDF should contribute is to why neooffice > did "join" go-oo at the time: To make grabbing their code easier. But > that is a very, very weak reason in my opinion. > >> So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as >> possible. If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating >> the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can. > > What is the point? If it is run by LO people, what is the benefit of > creating another entity instead of letting OOo be what it is (or > better was), and instead focusing only on LibreOffice? > > ciao > Christian > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > 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 discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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
