Ross Gardler wrote: > At present the only way I can see to start doing this is to a) drop > the ego on both "sides", this is a different world from the one in > which the fork was seen as necessary. There are still fundamental > licence differences, but I am sure that, for many, the licence is less > important than getting results. b) spending some time understanding > one another (for some that will mean rebuilding relationships) in > order to work towards your second suggestion... > Hi Ross,
hm, not sure I like your particular combination of a) and b) here -
understanding the other side should start with admitting that indeed
for a not insubstantial subset of LibreOffice hackers, the license
indeed *is* important. ;)
> I don't know OOo or LO well enough to know if there is scope for a
> "common, well-defined cooperative objective." It would be great if
> some people could spend some time considering this. It might well be
> that there is little scope for true collaboration. However, during the
> proposal phase there were a few people who wanted to explore this.
>
To be frank - having two projects targetting the ~same {market,
devs, QA, sponsors, code lines, ...} makes this extra-hard. It's
like asking two boys in a dog fight to both voluntarily step back &
shake hands - whereas in reality, it'll likely only stop after one
side has "won" (for some values of "win" and "reality").
From the earlier discussions, the idea to focus on basis
libraries/functionality at Apache, and build applications on top of
that had some appeal to me - also since it appeared to be much more
in line with (most of) the other Apache projects.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
pgpGdTKqJnMiP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
