Re: Recuse as mentor?
If people want, I will happily remove myself as mentor. This is supposed to be fun and at least *somewhat* fulfilling... I consider you an very important part of this process. Even when you have said something wrong or have made a wrong decision (i don't know one) you are still doing a great job. It is a very hot discussion with tons of e-mails and mistakes do happen. Others do their mistakes too. Speaking for myself, I am very glad you have this role and would kindly ask you to continue. Cheers Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 11:09:23 AM: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote: This is why, inside the ASF, we expect individuals to represent the communities interests not their commercial or their employers interests. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair, Jr. (1878-09-20 – 1968-11-25) It is important to understand the multiple hats doctrine: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats FWIW, I've found the IPMC members to be incredibly professional in acting in the best interest at AFS. In some cases I've been scolded or otherwise brought down to earth someone that I only later found to come from another IBMer, doing the right thing for AFS and the community, rather than simply following any corporate alliance. Personally I think that is the right thing. If a company thinks Apache is a good thing, and makes the investment of sponsoring developers to work in Apache projects, then they want Apache to succeed doing what it does well. To go against that risks subverting the very organizational investment being made. +1 The development process at Apache is (intentionally) as public, open and transparent as possible. Karma is granted to individuals not corporations. This helps reputation and standing in the community to balance other pressures. From time to time, problems emerge but we've found that most corporations respond quickly to pressure when they overstep the mark. Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Decades of Life (was: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal)
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 06:31) On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:07, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: [Picking a random mail in this thread] I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal. I read Reliance on Salaried Developers ... Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major reason for establishing the project at Apache. Unless really relevant, I would suggest to leave that last sentence out. I guess no need to explain why ;-) Cor: I believe that you would need a better understanding of Apache, or that you *do* need to explain why that sentence should be omitted. Apologies. Was too obvious for me. I read the sentence as arguing that TDF would not be a long term stable solution. And since there still are some attempts to build bridges, offensive suggestions have no place. On the other side: I have not a single reason to suggest that the ASF is not long term stable. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recuse as mentor?
Jim, To put it bluntly this project needs you. I say that because of both your attempts to engage here and the history I know you have. It is impossible to mediate between two opposing positions without upsetting people. I'd be worried if you were showing a bias towards one or the position. You are not, IMHO. As for the *one* email I've seen from you that really shouldn't have been sent I've also seen an immediate and complete apology. I've sent far worse emails in the past - I'm pleased to see you are human ;-) Please continue Ross Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 4 Jun 2011, at 08:31, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: If people want, I will happily remove myself as mentor. This is supposed to be fun and at least *somewhat* fulfilling... I consider you an very important part of this process. Even when you have said something wrong or have made a wrong decision (i don't know one) you are still doing a great job. It is a very hot discussion with tons of e-mails and mistakes do happen. Others do their mistakes too. Speaking for myself, I am very glad you have this role and would kindly ask you to continue. Cheers Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recuse as mentor?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: If people want, I will happily remove myself as mentor. This is supposed to be fun and at least *somewhat* fulfilling... I consider you an very important part of this process. Even when you have said something wrong or have made a wrong decision (i don't know one) you are still doing a great job. It is a very hot discussion with tons of e-mails and mistakes do happen. Others do their mistakes too. Speaking for myself, I am very glad you have this role and would kindly ask you to continue. Cheers Christian +1 Nothing to add :) Julien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Cor Nouws wrote (04-06-11 01:49) Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10) That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the press. It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press about that (at this stage). Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement about not talking to the press. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi Robert, I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to join in here: Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14: The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either copyright or code today. Apache is. Why? Can you elaborate? Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense. Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org / LibreOffice code legally usable within IBM Lotus Symphony is to use a non-copyleft license such as ASL2. That does not seem to be true: I suppose IBM could make Lotus Symphony source code available under a license which is compatible with LGPL3. I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes binaries available for free: http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony So my question to IBM is: Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if only parts of it) ? If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? If those questions have already been answered than forgive me, there are a lot of mails to read regarding the OpenOffice.org / Apache Incubator proposal ;-) Cheers, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
Excuse me for interrupting ... On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/ nor http://www.openoffice.org/license.html are mentioning the MPL. What's right? Thanks, Jochen -- Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. S.
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement about not talking to the press. Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's ideological stance will be a factor in breaking any cooperation. That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing the good and the potential of this effort. Whereas there appears a concerted effort by others to derail it and portray the ASF as the pawns of IBM/Oracle or as agents of anti-FOSS/anti-LOo actions. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war ~ John Adams - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On 4 June 2011 11:33, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement about not talking to the press. Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's ideological stance will be a factor in breaking any cooperation. That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing the good and the potential of this effort. Whereas there appears a concerted effort by others to derail it and portray the ASF as the pawns of IBM/Oracle or as agents of anti-FOSS/anti-LOo actions. I think this is a little extreme :-) I don't see much positive efforts at derailing, just people trying to work out what it all means in terms of their own perspective, value systems and their ownership of their work. I think the discussions are surprisingly cordial given the circumstances. EQ is going to be just as important as IQ in resolving all this. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war ~ John Adams - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- 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.
Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse me for interrupting ... On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/ nor http://www.openoffice.org/license.html are mentioning the MPL. What's right? I believe that during the talks between Robert and LibreOffice, LibreOffice asked to have the freed OpenOffice relicensed to LGPLv3/MPL, so that the wrongs are fixed and everyone is happy. But Robert got confused and says above that LibreOffice is already licensed under the LGPLv3/MPL. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement about not talking to the press. Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's ideological stance will be a factor in breaking any cooperation. That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing the good and the potential of this effort. like: Jagielski says what is typical for Apache is building (or even _re-building_) communities around those codebases. ... He says that makes Apache the perfect place to help '_repair_' the community around OpenOffice.org ... Weir also encourages the idea of doing core OO.org development in Apache and then having additional work done by _derivatives_. ... ? Norbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:25 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM: I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to happen. I would like to see this as well, everyone working on a single code base. That is very easy: instead of starting a fork, join the existing community. send patch at libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org if they are good they will be applied, if there are not that good you will usually get constructive feedback and many time even help to improve them. I'm looking forward to the fulfillment of your goal of everyone working on a single code base, leading by example... I've said it several times, but haven't (yet) seem to have been able to strike up a productive conversation: until we have a frank and open discussion concerning the differences of licenses, I don't see the above as a possibility. I have also replied to your post on the steering-discuss mailing list with a similar request: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01055.html Norbert - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: ... Simon, Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment: potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users By one definition, complementary means non-overlapping, pieces that are I find the query to be pedantic. We are not formulating a multi-national standards agreement here. Words are just words, and this is just a proposal to the Incubator PMC. Throw them on paper and move along. It is important that we form a common understanding on what we are voting on. I don't want some participants to be voting on a proposal with one understanding that there will be no overlap and subsequently to be surprised when their understanding does not match what actually is done. Simon's statement seemed pretty clear: LibreOffice complements anything that we do here at Apache. There is no need for additional constraint or precision. It gets across the basic concept. LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. Cheers, -g It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is -- Mr Clinton Cute quote, but the license question still remains. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic for Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it is at least as permissive as modified BSD) and it allows derivative works, of course. We renamed the Apache Software License, v1.1 to Apache License, v2.0 for the basic reason that we wanted to cover documentation, too. AFAIK, all documentation coming out of the ASF is licensed under ALv2. Would we be okay with CC licenses? Unsure, to be honest. I think that we certainly could be okay with it: certain forms of the CC license palette match our permissive ideals, and they are also modern, well-considered licenses. I'm not sure the question has come up, so we have no policy that I'm aware of. CC-by 2.5 is listed as acceptable: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a I have no reason to believe that 3.0 would pose a problem. Cheers, -g - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 06:19:06AM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: Jagielski says what is typical for Apache is building (or even _re-building_) communities around those codebases. Which is true. It does not say that TDF is not able to. ... He says that makes Apache the perfect place to help '_repair_' the community around OpenOffice.org The community is fractured, is it not? So our history of community created code *is* a perfect place to *help* repair it. Notice the word help. It implies cooperation with others who also help repair it. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war ~ John Adams - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On 4 June 2011 12:19, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement about not talking to the press. Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's ideological stance will be a factor in breaking any cooperation. That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing the good and the potential of this effort. like: Jagielski says what is typical for Apache is building (or even _re-building_) communities around those codebases. ... He says that makes Apache the perfect place to help '_repair_' the community around OpenOffice.org ... Weir also encourages the idea of doing core OO.org development in Apache and then having additional work done by _derivatives_. ... ? I can see why some might read into those statements implications that probably were not intended. That is the problem with perspectives :-) Is this saying TDF is responsible for breaking the OOo community? - I don't think so but some might read it as that. We all know the age old problem of communication by mailing list or news article. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- 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.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: So my question to IBM is: Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if only parts of it) ? While I work for IBM, I don't work for that part of IBM. That being said, I do believe that we already have an answer to that question. IBM has indicated that they are willing to contribute to a project made available under the Apache License, Version 2.0, which is a recognized Open Source license. Some of these contributions will be derived from the current IBM Lotus Symphony offering. As you are undoubtedly aware, IBM contributes to a number of projects, including Linux. Contributions to each project are made consistent with the license terms of that project. If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi Robert, Hi Florian (Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list) I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to join in here: Just like the rest of us :-) Noisy and open - everyone with an opinion is welcome :-) Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14: The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either copyright or code today. Apache is. Why? AIUI [1] the TDF is not a legal entity today and is still in the process of building it's legal, organisational and process infrastructure. I accept it has strong legal backing but today no (related) US non-profit corporation exists which could accept the donation. The Apache Software Foundation provides a suitable legal no-profit organisation and in place today a suitable process to accept large donations of code from major organisations safely through the Incubator. It has considerable experience of opening close source projects and in working with rich downstream ecologies. Can you elaborate? IMHO LibreOffice community finds itself in a similar position to the Apache group in the mid-90s. Great community. Fantastic momentum. Cool product. But establishing code provenance and the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) took a(n unexpectedly) large amount of time and energy. Establishing suitable licenses and agreements took time and energy over several iterations. Establishing a sound Incubation process took time and energy over many iterations. It took time for us to learn and evolve secure processes which don't completely suck. The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an alternative path might achieve their aims faster... Robert [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTi=ay5pm-xvcvbxxjwj0eqqqpww...@mail.gmail.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse me for interrupting ... On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/ nor http://www.openoffice.org/license.html are mentioning the MPL. What's right? I believe that during the talks between Robert and LibreOffice, LibreOffice asked to have the freed OpenOffice relicensed to LGPLv3/MPL, so that the wrongs are fixed and everyone is happy. But Robert got confused and says above that LibreOffice is already licensed under the LGPLv3/MPL. I believe it's a bit more complex than that. The following is my understanding of the history and situation, I'd welcome corrections where I have misunderstood or misremembered or my summary omits key details. IBM has been trying for years to get the OOo code put back under a permissive license. It used to be under SISSL (a now-deprecated permissive open source license) and LGPLv2, and in those days IBM was free to build Symphony without any reference to OOo. Its worth noting that they never contributed any code at all to the community when OOo was under that permissive license. Once OOo licensing was updated to LGPLv3 only, IBM could no longer operate in this way. There were extensive negotiations, first on a semi-open community basis and then between Sun and IBM. The result was apparently a private licensing arrangement. Under that arrangement, IBM was again able to use the OOo code. Under this arrangement, they also contributed very little code (although at least a bit). In discussions with community members before the fork, IBMs representatives indicated that if the code project was licensed under a weak copyleft license like MPL or CDDL, they would be able and willing to both use it and work within the community. In order to ensure IBM would be able to participate in LibreOffice in the event the rest of the code was relicensed in a way they could accept, the community there has ensured that contributions have been made under both MPL and LGPLv3. Since the inbound code LibreOffice uses is currently mainly under LGPLv3, LibreOffice is licensed under LGPLv3 outbound at present even though inbound new contributions are under both licenses. This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went to a fair bit of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on Rob's blog and elsewhere. Hope that helps, S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice S. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went to a fair bit of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on Rob's blog and elsewhere. And rightfully so, if your understanding is right. (My opinion.) But let me summarize what you wrote otherwise into a single sentence: There are pieces of LO, which are available under a dual license, but in general one should assume that both OO and LO are available under the terms of LGPLv3 only. Jochen -- Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent. S.
RE: Recuse as mentor?
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wote: Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties, or whatever... There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that I have done wrong, or did not do, or did not due to someone's satisfaction. If people want, I will happily remove myself as mentor. This is supposed to be fun and at least *somewhat* fulfilling... Hello Jim, There is no question that the former OpenOffice community is now fractured, and some people have some strong negative feelings about certain parties. That is an environment which neither of us caused but it is what it is and something we need to deal with. With that backdrop, I have been perplexed and concerned with some of your public postings. They have been things I might expect to see coming from a member of the gallery, but not from the President of the Apache Software Foundation, a project mentor, and a person who I would think would be trying to promote a sense of community. Its seems that you have a high level of mistrust for certain persons and are not prepared to reach out magnanimously to all parties in an attempt to bring them together. I see this as creating ongoing problems. When I initially read your offer to recuse yourself as a mentor, I read it and gave it some thought but had no immediate response. With your post this morning however, and while speaking only as a member of the OpenOffice community and a guest here at the Apache Software Foundation, I am now prepared to accept your offer to recuse yourself as a mentor. Thank you, Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Andreas, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes binaries available for free: http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony Although you can download IBM Lotus Symphony for free it is still licensed as an IBM commercial product using a particular license (ILAN [1]). Besides that IBM Lotus Symphony is part of IBM LotusLive [2] so the product is certainly a bit more than just the Eclipse-based client (actually it uses a variation of Eclipse called IBM Lotus Expeditor [3]) that one can download for free. [1] http://www-03.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf/viewbla/ [2] https://www.lotuslive.com/ [3] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Expeditor Cheers Daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. Just to be clear: you disagree with enumerating other complements that might apply in other situations? S. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent. Please don't put words in my mouth. I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context. S. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
The reason for my questions is that I hope that answers might in some way potentially help to avoid separate code bases for OpenOffice.org / LibreOffice or at least make it possible to avoid that for parts of the code. Some kind of reasonable relation between Lotus Symphony and Openoffice.org / LibreOffice obviously is needed. *** My opinion is that some kind of copyleft license might be better suited for this type of software than a non-copyleft license. The difference between libraries, frameworks etc. which are mostly used by developers and end user applications might be decisive. I am aware of great existing proprietary products usable by end users built using software produced in ASF projects but I can not point to any ASF application which is easily usable by non-developer end users (I would be glad to be corrected ;-). Maybe that has something to do with the license. At the same time I think that a strong community around a project is (regularly) more important than the license used by it. In other words: perhaps there are parts of OpenOffice.org for which the Apache License 2 is more appropriate than it is for other parts. Cheers, Andreas --- Am 04.06.2011 13:35, schrieb Sam Ruby: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Am 04.06.2011 13:35, schrieb Sam Ruby: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: So my question to IBM is: Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if only parts of it) ? While I work for IBM, I don't work for that part of IBM. That being said, I do believe that we already have an answer to that question. IBM has indicated that they are willing to contribute to a project made available under the Apache License, Version 2.0, which is a recognized Open Source license. Some of these contributions will be derived from the current IBM Lotus Symphony offering. As you are undoubtedly aware, IBM contributes to a number of projects, including Linux. Contributions to each project are made consistent with the license terms of that project. If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartza.kucka...@ping.de wrote: If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. I'll assert that there is a subset of participants on this list, taking part in this discussion and whom have added their names to the proposed committers list who feel strongly that the proposed project's efforts should include a strong end-user focus. I'm willing to believe that there is also a subset that thinks otherwise. If these difference can be resolved, that would be best. But if not, I'll suggest that this is a fundamental difference of vision which probably cannot be reconciled within a single proposal. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote on 06/04/2011 12:22:31 AM: From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: 06/04/2011 12:23 AM Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible? On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following questions. This would help us understand what room there is for negotiation and what is not worth discussing at all. As the VP, HTTP Server Project, let me suggest how the ASF would answer your questions, and possibly lead you to rephrase many of your questions. It is not relevant how ASF would answer these questions. I'm open to to possibility that a 6-month old open source association with a single project might have more flexibility, as an organization, than ASF, a 12-year old foundation, with a legal entity and nearly 170 projects. Note that in this case I am talking specifically about the organization, not the collective membership. That is why I explicitly directed the questions to the TDF Steering Committee, asking for an official response. I think this would be very useful. Of course, the views of the communities at large are important as well, and ultimately even determining. But as a practical matter we are not going to directly negotiate this between hundreds of individual members of TDF with many hundreds more of Apache participants. But certainly, once the parameters of the negotiations are established, and we work out a proposed framework for collaboration, it would be perfectly reasonable for the TDF Steering Committee to bring that to their general membership for consultations and even a vote. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33) On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement about not talking to the press. Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's ideological stance will be a factor in breaking any cooperation. I did not say that. But it was said of the interview with Meeks, which we found out not to be true either. That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing the good and the potential of this effort. Whereas there appears a concerted effort by others to derail it and portray the ASF as the pawns of IBM/Oracle or as agents of anti-FOSS/anti-LOo actions. If that is the feeling you get, there is something wrong. I do not see any sense in criticizing the ASF, just because they have a different view. Seems you get hit by pieces flying around that belong in the IBM - TDF dispute ;-) Sorry about that, maybe a bit more precise wording (from me and others) here and there would help, but I'm not sure if it would fully prevent that happening. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartza.kucka...@ping.de wrote: If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO. I'm not an expert in this but is seems to me that since you can derive a copy left licensed product from an Apache licensed product but not the other way round, it is in fact logical to start with Apache if both are to be considered. -- 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.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39) On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO. I'm not an expert in this but is seems to me that since you can derive a copy left licensed product from an Apache licensed product but not the other way round, it is in fact logical to start with Apache if both are to be considered. No, those people will not join that project under Apache. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hello Robert, 2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi Robert, Hi Florian (Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list) Did I send you a reply off-list? Damned phone... I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to join in here: Just like the rest of us :-) Noisy and open - everyone with an opinion is welcome :-) Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14: The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either copyright or code today. Apache is. Why? AIUI [1] the TDF is not a legal entity today and is still in the process of building it's legal, organisational and process infrastructure. I accept it has strong legal backing but today no (related) US non-profit corporation exists which could accept the donation. 2 comments here: 1) actually TDF has an existing legal entity at its core, and it's a german association. 2) why a US non profit? The Apache Software Foundation provides a suitable legal no-profit organisation and in place today a suitable process to accept large donations of code from major organisations safely through the Incubator. It has considerable experience of opening close source projects and in working with rich downstream ecologies. Can you elaborate? IMHO LibreOffice community finds itself in a similar position to the Apache group in the mid-90s. Great community. Fantastic momentum. Cool product. But establishing code provenance and the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) took a(n unexpectedly) large amount of time and energy. Establishing suitable licenses and agreements took time and energy over several iterations. Establishing a sound Incubation process took time and energy over many iterations. It took time for us to learn and evolve secure processes which don't completely suck. The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an alternative path might achieve their aims faster... We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they don't even know? Best, Charles. Robert [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTi=ay5pm-xvcvbxxjwj0eqqqpww...@mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
Hello Jochen, 2011/6/4 Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went to a fair bit of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on Rob's blog and elsewhere. And rightfully so, if your understanding is right. (My opinion.) But let me summarize what you wrote otherwise into a single sentence: There are pieces of LO, which are available under a dual license, but in general one should assume that both OO and LO are available under the terms of LGPLv3 only. Almost :) . OOo is available under LGPL v3. Any code for and from LibreOffice *only* is LGPL v3 + (note the +), MPL and GPL v3. Best, Charles. Jochen -- Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On 4 June 2011 13:47, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39) On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO. I'm not an expert in this but is seems to me that since you can derive a copy left licensed product from an Apache licensed product but not the other way round, it is in fact logical to start with Apache if both are to be considered. No, those people will not join that project under Apache. So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code they own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of view but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an Apache license doesn't have to. In that sense there is a need for LO with a copyleft license. There can still be cooperation to try and make the best out of that situation. 2 options - 1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo. 2. TDF/LO cooperate with ASF to keep two versions of the code but with minimum divergence and maximum commonality given the licensing contstraints. Personally I prefer option 2. Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient support and stagnates, TDF LO carry on developing what becomes the main used code base. Or ApacheOOo attracts developers from TDF and it thrives and TDF dies. Or both thrive as two separate projects in their own right. Possible consequences of Option 2. There are versions of the code derived from the Apache licensed version that are substantially technically the same but at least one is licensed copy left and supported by those that believe this license is the only one they can work with (TDF/LO) Ok there are other possibilities too but I have discounted move everything to LibreO or move everything to Apache because I can't see either of those options being practically possible. I'd be happy to be proved wrong :-) -- 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.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote on 06/04/2011 09:10:05 AM: So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code they own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of view but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an Apache license doesn't have to. In that sense there is a need for LO with a copyleft license. There can still be cooperation to try and make the best out of that situation. Exactly. As a prospective committer of Apache OpenOffice I'd love help from all quarters and collaboration in all directions. But absent that, I'd be satisfied to merely not have the project's potential existence portrayed as a disease that must be eradicated from the face of the earth. The existence of a thriving community around TDF/LO is an opportunity for Apache OpenOffice. We've discussed some of the possible avenues for collaboration. But the existence of TDF/LO is not a valid reason to suggest that Apache OpenOffice should not exist, provided it meets Apache-defined criteria for entering a podling. I don't hear anyone denying the right of TDF/LO to exist, for that project to continue or even to thrive. Let's make this respect mutual. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die. Cheers, Andreas --- Am 04.06.2011 15:10, schrieb Ian Lynch: 1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo. ... Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient support and stagnates, TDF LO carry on developing what becomes the main used code base. Or ApacheOOo attracts developers from TDF and it thrives and TDF dies. Or both thrive as two separate projects in their own right. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi, On 04/06/2011 16:03, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello Robert, 2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkinrobertburrelldon...@gmail.com [...] The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an alternative path might achieve their aims faster... We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they don't even know? This development of our governance and structure is also the result of 10 years of project and community life, working together and elaborating our rules and processes, having a deep knowledge of the ecosystem and of our user base. The TDF is born from this analyze and is the maturation of this community, this is why we see it unified even when creating the foundation. Kind regards Sophie Best, Charles. Robert [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTi=ay5pm-xvcvbxxjwj0eqqqpww...@mail.gmail.com%3E -- Founding member of The Document Foundation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Build machines: external or colocated?
I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side. In particular, does Apache have some way to accept hardware donations and have them co-located in your data center, with Apache taking care of physical infrastructure, back ups, bandwidth, etc. Is that possible at all? Or should I be looking at some way these build machines could be hosted externally? How is this ordinarily done at Apache? Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartza.kucka...@ping.de wrote: If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO. This question can be looked at from multiple perspectives. I will start by acknowledging your perspective as a valid perspective. I will close by asking that you acknowledge mine in a likewise manner. In order to cast the widest possible net, it is important to pick a license that seeks to permit the widespread use of the code, being inclusive of both Free and proprietary software products alike. I fully understand that that is just one possible criteria for a license choice. While other choices may make sense depending on the specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation. Before proceeding, can I get you to acknowledge that as a valid perspective? Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote on 06/04/2011 01:07:36 AM: Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo extensions? Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, Professional Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc. Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit at a later stage of the project. Similarly, IBM has a range of OpenOffice feature, enhancements, performance improvements, accessibility work, interoperability work, etc., that we want to contribute to the project, from our work on Symphony. But I agree with Andrew, let's get the base build up and running, have that milestone success first, get to a release of an IP-cleared product, and then move on from there. Of course, the project's PMC will determine the priorities and ordering of this work. It is possible, for example, that other members of the community might have items to contribute that are deemed more important to integrate first. We'll work that through the project. Crawl. Walk. Run. Fly. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi Robert, I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to join in here: Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14: The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either copyright or code today. Apache is. Why? Can you elaborate? In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org. Julien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi, Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05: In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org. where is this different from a German entity where donations are tax-deductible, like with the current association (which is even accredited as especially meritorious by the tax department), or the foundation currently created? Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On 06/04/2011 09:40 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die. Which is a possible consequence of any software... How many times can we go around in circles? I agree with Ian. Accept that there are two communities and move on either together or separately, but quit debating/wishing that there should only be one community. - richard Cheers, Andreas --- Am 04.06.2011 15:10, schrieb Ian Lynch: 1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo. ... Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient support and stagnates, TDF LO carry on developing what becomes the main used code base. Or ApacheOOo attracts developers from TDF and it thrives and TDF dies. Or both thrive as two separate projects in their own right. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Build machines: external or colocated?
On Jun 4, 2011 9:43 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side. In particular, does Apache have some way to accept hardware donations and have them co-located in your data center, with Apache taking care of physical infrastructure, back ups, bandwidth, etc. Is that possible at all? Or should I be looking at some way these build machines could be hosted externally? How is this ordinarily done at Apache? Pretty much without fail, hardware donations have turned out... shall we say, less than effective. I'd be interested in learning how OOo and LO do their wide array of build targets. Where and how are those machines hosted? That would help in defining and scoping the problem for the ASF. Thanks, -g
Re: Build machines: external or colocated?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side. In particular, does Apache have some way to accept hardware donations and have them co-located in your data center, with Apache taking care of physical infrastructure, back ups, bandwidth, etc. Is that possible at all? Or should I be looking at some way these build machines could be hosted externally? How is this ordinarily done at Apache? It is a complicated subject, and I will just outline some of the parameters. But first I will say that I personally arranged (OK, with considerable backing and support from my management) to loan the ASF four new machines a number of years back on extended loan and these machines were only recently returned after they exceeded their life expectancy. These machines were used for core and critical functions for the ASF. Outright donations have also been accepted from other companies. That being said, the conversation can not start from a perspective of this is what I have to offer, can you make use of it? Instead it needs to start from a perspective of what the ASF needs and how best to accommodate those needs. A specific point that is important to realize is that our system administrative staff understandably wishes to constrain the number of different types of operating systems that they use. Regards, -Rob - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I'd be satisfied to merely not have the project's potential existence portrayed as a disease that must be eradicated from the face of the earth. This type of rhetorical flourish does not lead to mutual cooperation. Take it elsewhere. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent. Please don't put words in my mouth. I've not and I won't. Please chill. I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context. That's not denying my assertion. I also encourage people to read FSF Board member Bradley Kuhn's clarifications: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18558 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18807 S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Jun 4, 2011 10:08 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi, Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05: In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org. where is this different from a German entity where donations are tax-deductible, like with the current association (which is even accredited as especially meritorious by the tax department), or the foundation currently created? Oracle America is the full name of the entity that granted us the code. They may not have been able to get the same tax deduction donating to a foreign entity. The tax deduction would be *considerable* given the value of the OOo brand. Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's recommendation, than taxes. Cheers, -g
Re: Recuse as mentor?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.orgwrote: Its seems that you have a high level of mistrust for certain persons and are not prepared to reach out magnanimously to all parties in an attempt to bring them together. I see this as creating ongoing problems. As a student and only follow the mailing list about this OO.o project few days ago and knowing some of the key people here, I do not share the same opinion about Jim. In fact, I feel Jim is one of the few people can bring different parties together. Senses of honest, open and forgiving community bring a youngster like me to be more involved in this movement. I have faith that he can do this. If men were angels, no government would be necessary James Madison.
Re: Build machines: external or colocated?
Most of Apache Infrastructure is based on shared resources, and our build environments are no exception. We currently provide both jenkins and buildbot based build systems, and the slaves naturally run jobs for several projects. We provide access to Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, and a few flavors of Windows. With OO I could see a situation where having dedicated resources for some/all of the OS's would make sense. The ASF doesn't generally accept targetted donations and Infrastructure is long past the days of relying on hardware donations to survive. We currently have a few machines in the queue that we might be able to purpose as OO build slaves, but if we need more I'm sure the board won't mind approving a budget increase for us to do so. In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable at infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to help bridge any gaps. HTH - Original Message From: robert_w...@us.ibm.com robert_w...@us.ibm.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 9:42:54 AM Subject: Build machines: external or colocated? I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side. In particular, does Apache have some way to accept hardware donations and have them co-located in your data center, with Apache taking care of physical infrastructure, back ups, bandwidth, etc. Is that possible at all? Or should I be looking at some way these build machines could be hosted externally? How is this ordinarily done at Apache? Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby: While other choices may make sense depending on the specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation. I do not know if that is a valid perspective or not, but I think that the categorical statement (necessary consequence) contained in it is false. The license used for the Linux kernel certainly does not cast the widest possible net but I do not see significant fragmentation, quite the contrary. There is essentially one and the same kernel used by (almost) all Linux distributions (with rather small modifications). (Generally: When a net is to wide it can get teared up.) Cheers, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi, Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-04 16.28: Oracle America is the full name of the entity that granted us the code. They may not have been able to get the same tax deduction donating to a foreign entity. The tax deduction would be*considerable* given the value of the OOo brand. ah, sorry, then I understood this wrong - I understood the mail in a way that in general, an US-based solution would be better. Of course, for US-based entitites, a US foundation has advantages, whereas for European-based entities, an European foundation has advantages. What I wanted to point out is that in any way, a solution has to be found for those not located in the legislative of the foundation, so ASF and TDF have the same issues here to solve. Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's recommendation, than taxes. I tend to agree. At least it would have not been impossible at all to work around that donation isuse, if there had been a will to do so. But I guess that should not be the topic of this thread. :-) More on the other mails later on, Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:53:54 AM: Andreas, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes binaries available for free: http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony Although you can download IBM Lotus Symphony for free it is still licensed as an IBM commercial product using a particular license (ILAN [1]). Besides that IBM Lotus Symphony is part of IBM LotusLive [2] so the product is certainly a bit more than just the Eclipse-based client (actually it uses a variation of Eclipse called IBM Lotus Expeditor [3]) that one can download for free. [1] http://www-03.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf/viewbla/ [2] https://www.lotuslive.com/ [3] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Expeditor Since this was an IBM-directed question, I'm wearing my IBM hat here. LotusLive Symphony only shares the Symphony brand. It is a set of web-based collaborative editors. It is not derived from the OpenOffice.org code. But since many customers want heterogenous access to desktop and cloud editors, we want to maintain strength in both. But you are correct in saying that we've been using the core OpenOffice/Symphony code in several ways, as standalone editors, as imbedded in Expeditor, the related embedded version in Notes, etc. I'd like to see the Apache OpenOffice project enable this type of embedding be more prevalent. It is end-user facing, obviously, but embedded in other applications, as well as standalone. I think this is something that is uniquely enabled by open source. We give away the free version, as mentioned. We also sell support and bundle it with proprietary products. We also have partnerships with laptop vendors to pre-load Symphony. I'm not saying this to sell IBM's commercial business. But I did want to demonstrate that we have a strong business interest in seeing this project thrive. Our business interests are aligned with the success of this project. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote on 06/04/2011 06:24:07 AM: I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense. Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org / LibreOffice code legally usable within IBM Lotus Symphony is to use a non-copyleft license such as ASL2. A citation, please? I don't recall seeing such a statement made. That does not seem to be true: I suppose IBM could make Lotus Symphony source code available under a license which is compatible with LGPL3. I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes binaries available for free: http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony So my question to IBM is: Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if only parts of it) ? If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? We've already contributed work from Symphony to OpenOffice.org. For example, we've done quite a bit of accessibility work that we contributed. The TDF/LO developers are discussing how they might take this code from OOo (under LGPL) and integrate it into LO: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice-accessibility-OpenOffice-and-LibreOffice-accessibility-td2443490.html This is an example of one form of collaboration that we should continue to enable and encourage. The Symphony team is currently discussing what other features they are interesting in contributing initially. I'll check to see if they have a list they are able to share at this point. Obviously, as an Apache project, this would be under the Apache 2.0 license. But please remember, there is no guarantee that the Apache OpenOffice project members will want all, or indeed any of our proposed contributions. As you probably know, we have a radically different approach to the user interface. It would be presumptive for me to assume that this would necessarily be adopted by the community. But we're willing to discuss this, along with other project members as we chart the evolution of OpenOffice. Regards, -Rob If those questions have already been answered than forgive me, there are a lot of mails to read regarding the OpenOffice.org / Apache Incubator proposal ;-) Cheers, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby: While other choices may make sense depending on the specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation. I do not know if that is a valid perspective or not, but I think that the categorical statement (necessary consequence) contained in it is false. The license used for the Linux kernel certainly does not cast the widest possible net but I do not see significant fragmentation, quite the contrary. There is essentially one and the same kernel used by (almost) all Linux distributions (with rather small modifications). Much of the Apache Software Foundation infrastructure is run on FreeBSD. OS/X is built upon a similar base. If we wish to join forces (and to be clear, that's my preferred option) it behoves us to enable the Darwins of the world. Alternately (and NOT my preferred option) lets decide that we are pursuing separate goals and find other ways to support each other. (Generally: When a net is to wide it can get teared up.) The problem with all analogies is that they are fundamentally flawed. :-) Cheers, Andreas - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Build machines: external or colocated?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Most of Apache Infrastructure is based on shared resources, and our build environments are no exception. We currently provide both jenkins and buildbot based build systems, and the slaves naturally run jobs for several projects. We provide access to Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, and a few flavors of Windows. With OO I could see a situation where having dedicated resources for some/all of the OS's would make sense. The ASF doesn't generally accept targetted donations and Infrastructure is long past the days of relying on hardware donations to survive. We currently have a few machines in the queue that we might be able to purpose as OO build slaves, but if we need more I'm sure the board won't mind approving a budget increase for us to do so. In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable at infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to help bridge any gaps. I think it would be invaluable to OO for you to be a mentor, so I hope you do. Niall HTH - Original Message From: robert_w...@us.ibm.com robert_w...@us.ibm.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 9:42:54 AM Subject: Build machines: external or colocated? I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side. In particular, does Apache have some way to accept hardware donations and have them co-located in your data center, with Apache taking care of physical infrastructure, back ups, bandwidth, etc. Is that possible at all? Or should I be looking at some way these build machines could be hosted externally? How is this ordinarily done at Apache? Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Build machines: external or colocated?
Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote on 06/04/2011 10:37:03 AM: In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable at infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to help bridge any gaps. Thanks for the offer, Joe. The current proposal does say that an infrastructure mentor would be valued, so if you have some cycles to spare, it would surely be appreciated. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Build machines: external or colocated?
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/04/2011 10:19:27 AM: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side. In particular, does Apache have some way to accept hardware donations and have them co-located in your data center, with Apache taking care of physical infrastructure, back ups, bandwidth, etc. Is that possible at all? Or should I be looking at some way these build machines could be hosted externally? How is this ordinarily done at Apache? It is a complicated subject, and I will just outline some of the parameters. But first I will say that I personally arranged (OK, with considerable backing and support from my management) to loan the ASF four new machines a number of years back on extended loan and these machines were only recently returned after they exceeded their life expectancy. These machines were used for core and critical functions for the ASF. Outright donations have also been accepted from other companies. That being said, the conversation can not start from a perspective of this is what I have to offer, can you make use of it? Instead it needs to start from a perspective of what the ASF needs and how best to accommodate those needs. A specific point that is important to realize is that our system administrative staff understandably wishes to constrain the number of different types of operating systems that they use. OK. This is encouraging. We can map out the details in the project, see if we have a hardware gap, and explore solutions at this point. I just wanted to point out, for the benefit of the IPMC, that although a concern was earlier raised about build machine resources, we have identified now two possible ways of addressing it. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Build machines: external or colocated?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable at infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to help bridge any gaps. I think it would be invaluable to OO for you to be a mentor, so I hope you do. +1. And not just to help bridge gaps in infrastructure. Niall - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recuse as mentor?
On 4 June 2011 12:52, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wote: Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties, or whatever... There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that I have done wrong, or did not do, or did not due to someone's satisfaction. If people want, I will happily remove myself as mentor. This is supposed to be fun and at least *somewhat* fulfilling... Hello Jim, There is no question that the former OpenOffice community is now fractured, and some people have some strong negative feelings about certain parties. That is an environment which neither of us caused but it is what it is and something we need to deal with. With that backdrop, I have been perplexed and concerned with some of your public postings. They have been things I might expect to see coming from a member of the gallery, but not from the President of the Apache Software Foundation, a project mentor, and a person who I would think would be trying to promote a sense of community. Its seems that you have a high level of mistrust for certain persons and are not prepared to reach out magnanimously to all parties in an attempt to bring them together. I see this as creating ongoing problems. When I initially read your offer to recuse yourself as a mentor, I read it and gave it some thought but had no immediate response. With your post this morning however, and while speaking only as a member of the OpenOffice community and a guest here at the Apache Software Foundation, I am now prepared to accept your offer to recuse yourself as a mentor. As a long time member of the OOo community myself I say you should stay. This is all a bit contentious so let's try to keep things friendly and if we say things we regret or are taken the wrong way, apologise and move on. Thank you, Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- 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.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On 4 June 2011 15:46, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby: While other choices may make sense depending on the specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation. I do not know if that is a valid perspective or not, but I think that the categorical statement (necessary consequence) contained in it is false. The license used for the Linux kernel certainly does not cast the widest possible net but I do not see significant fragmentation, quite the contrary. There is essentially one and the same kernel used by (almost) all Linux distributions (with rather small modifications). Much of the Apache Software Foundation infrastructure is run on FreeBSD. OS/X is built upon a similar base. If we wish to join forces (and to be clear, that's my preferred option) it behoves us to enable the Darwins of the world. Alternately (and NOT my preferred option) lets decide that we are pursuing separate goals and find other ways to support each other. (Generally: When a net is to wide it can get teared up.) The problem with all analogies is that they are fundamentally flawed. :-) Yes, they are for Language graduates not technologists ;-) There is clearly risk in any strategy to move forward but there is no point in obfuscating the risk calculation by including constants as if they were variables. Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is not a value judgement. Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way round Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will not want to work on non- CL code Fact: ASF will not change its license Given these it seems certain to me that there will be two projects. Its up to the players to makes sure that they thrive rather than die. I believe we can do this so let's just do it. Cheers, Andreas - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- 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.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is not a value judgement. Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way round Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will not want to work on non- CL code Fact: ASF will not change its license Given these it seems certain to me that there will be two projects. Its up to the players to makes sure that they thrive rather than die. I believe we can do this so let's just do it. There are a few reasons to not jump to this conclusion just yet, not the least of which is that the ASF has not even voted to accept this project for incubation. It is also possible that there are enough TDF people who are willing to accept the Apache License and would prefer that these codebases not further diverge. That being said, if we do (however reluctantly) come to the point where we need to make the conclusion you described above, lets see if we can work together to produce a joint statement to that effect. In particular, lets put all past mistakes in what each of has said (or failed to say) publicly behind us. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such questions without first understanding the consensus of the members I would be most displeased with my Board. To expect the TDF to treat their membership in this way is, IMHO, unreasonable. This should be a dialog not a set of binary choices. Ross Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:37, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote on 06/04/2011 12:22:31 AM: From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: 06/04/2011 12:23 AM Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible? On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following questions. This would help us understand what room there is for negotiation and what is not worth discussing at all. As the VP, HTTP Server Project, let me suggest how the ASF would answer your questions, and possibly lead you to rephrase many of your questions. It is not relevant how ASF would answer these questions. I'm open to to possibility that a 6-month old open source association with a single project might have more flexibility, as an organization, than ASF, a 12-year old foundation, with a legal entity and nearly 170 projects. Note that in this case I am talking specifically about the organization, not the collective membership. That is why I explicitly directed the questions to the TDF Steering Committee, asking for an official response. I think this would be very useful. Of course, the views of the communities at large are important as well, and ultimately even determining. But as a practical matter we are not going to directly negotiate this between hundreds of individual members of TDF with many hundreds more of Apache participants. But certainly, once the parameters of the negotiations are established, and we work out a proposed framework for collaboration, it would be perfectly reasonable for the TDF Steering Committee to bring that to their general membership for consultations and even a vote. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
I think this is a diversion. We all know the press will choose the single sentence that will create the most traffic. It doesn't matter if this pro or anti foo, they just want traffic. Let's just assume nobody intended any malice. The journalists want us to fight, it makes for better stories. Let's focus on solving real problems not worrying about ones that are not there. Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 4 Jun 2011, at 15:25, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent. Please don't put words in my mouth. I've not and I won't. Please chill. I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context. That's not denying my assertion. I also encourage people to read FSF Board member Bradley Kuhn's clarifications: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18558 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18807 S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On 4 June 2011 16:54, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is not a value judgement. Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way round Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will not want to work on non- CL code Fact: ASF will not change its license Given these it seems certain to me that there will be two projects. Its up to the players to makes sure that they thrive rather than die. I believe we can do this so let's just do it. There are a few reasons to not jump to this conclusion just yet, not the least of which is that the ASF has not even voted to accept this project for incubation. It is also possible that there are enough TDF people who are willing to accept the Apache License and would prefer that these codebases not further diverge. Hm, I think there will always be sufficient who are philosophically in the CopyLeft camp. That really means it's the balance that is not known. Ok if that balance shifts too far to one side or another the other project is likely to die but that is probably going to take time beyond the incubation period to determine. If OOo doesn't make it through to the incubator I guess TDF and LO will just carry on from where they are. In that case those that feel strongly that is the best outcome won't want the vote to go in favour. Since Ross said a good reason not to accept the code would be needed, the only candidate I can see is that it will effectively result in 2 projects. That is a value judgement Apache members will have to decide but they might well take the view that a more permissive license trumps 2 projects - well they are Apache people so they must believe in the license :-) It is this reasoning that leads me to the conclusions stated. That being said, if we do (however reluctantly) come to the point where we need to make the conclusion you described above, lets see if we can work together to produce a joint statement to that effect. In particular, lets put all past mistakes in what each of has said (or failed to say) publicly behind us. I wholeheartedly agree. The people I have worked with at OOo and LO and Ross I know from Apache, are all good people. Let's respect differences and show what the community can do. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- 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.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 Jun 2011, at 20:33, Leo Simons wrote:
Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first
arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :)
Strong +1 to that. This is a big decision, and some of us would like
to gauge reaction beyond the confines of this list before voting.
* Arguably you need _at least_ 3 mentors first.
If and when I satisfy myself on being +1 on the proposal, I'd be
prepared to put my name down. I've been doing less apache stuff
than I should of late!
[chop several good points]
One more point here: where are ASF's infra folks in this discussion?
This is going to put more burden than ${average-project} on them.
--
Nick Kew
Available for work, contract or permanent
http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On 4 June 2011 13:37, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. I'll assert that there is a subset of participants on this list, taking part in this discussion and whom have added their names to the proposed committers list who feel strongly that the proposed project's efforts should include a strong end-user focus. That is certainly true of myself and I suspect Manfred Reiter. We are both interested in certification and marketing as we both have professional backgrounds in vocational education and training. I was formerly education lead for OOo and Manfred formerly co-lead for the German project. We are currently collaborating in EU funded projects. I wrote an application for funding that is being presented through the German National Agency for an OpenOffice.org certification project - even if this application failed we can do others and the focus has to be impact on end-users. I'm willing to believe that there is also a subset that thinks otherwise. If these difference can be resolved, that would be best. But if not, I'll suggest that this is a fundamental difference of vision which probably cannot be reconciled within a single proposal. If for some organisational reason it is better for us to be in camp foo rather than camp bar we have no problem. We just want to help people get free and open source office productivity tools. We will work cooperatively with anyone who has similar broad goals. -- 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.
Re: Build machines: external or colocated?
On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable at infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to help bridge any gaps. I think it would be invaluable to OO for you to be a mentor, so I hope you do. +1. And not just to help bridge gaps in infrastructure. +1, agreed. I'm more interested in the shows he does at 7pm and 9pm -- try the veil! Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM: Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible? I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such questions without first understanding the consensus of the members I would be most displeased with my Board. To expect the TDF to treat their membership in this way is, IMHO, unreasonable. This should be a dialog not a set of binary choices. Indeed. It could always occur in multiple stages, with TDF getting feedback from their membership, etc., doing this in iterative rounds of discussions. I leave it to TDF how best to caucus. Would you acknowledge that having a direct negotiating session with 500 individual in not really practical, especially if those individuals have no authority over their organization's respective licenses? Or, in your experience, do you know of a better way? If so, please share. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Build machines: external or colocated?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Most of Apache Infrastructure is based on shared resources, and our build environments are no exception. We currently provide both jenkins and buildbot based build systems, and the slaves naturally run jobs for several projects. While that used to be true, the Subversion project has dedicated buildbot slaves running in a dedicated virtual machines, or machines set up but svn folks. Once builds are taking too long to finish - thereby blocking other builds from other projects - it doesn't make sense anymore to share slaves. Also as for OOo a lot of libraries need to be installed to get it to build, it'll be much easier (well, less difficult) to keep it separated from the other projects. Lieven We provide access to Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, and a few flavors of Windows. With OO I could see a situation where having dedicated resources for some/all of the OS's would make sense. The ASF doesn't generally accept targetted donations and Infrastructure is long past the days of relying on hardware donations to survive. We currently have a few machines in the queue that we might be able to purpose as OO build slaves, but if we need more I'm sure the board won't mind approving a budget increase for us to do so. In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable at infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to help bridge any gaps. HTH - Original Message From: robert_w...@us.ibm.com robert_w...@us.ibm.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 9:42:54 AM Subject: Build machines: external or colocated? I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side. In particular, does Apache have some way to accept hardware donations and have them co-located in your data center, with Apache taking care of physical infrastructure, back ups, bandwidth, etc. Is that possible at all? Or should I be looking at some way these build machines could be hosted externally? How is this ordinarily done at Apache? Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM: Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible? I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such questions without first understanding the consensus of the members I would be most displeased with my Board. To expect the TDF to treat their membership in this way is, IMHO, unreasonable. This should be a dialog not a set of binary choices. Indeed. It could always occur in multiple stages, with TDF getting feedback from their membership, etc., doing this in iterative rounds of discussions. I leave it to TDF how best to caucus. Would you acknowledge that having a direct negotiating session with 500 individual in not really practical, especially if those individuals have no authority over their organization's respective licenses? Or, in your experience, do you know of a better way? If so, please share. Unless anybody objects, I will personally take ownership of this issue. On the subject of licenses I *can* speak authoritatively on behalf of the ASF. I've engaged in the discussion both here and on the documentfoundation.org lists. The best summary I am aware of to date on this issue can be found at: http://s.apache.org/lY -Rob - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. Agreed, but that assumes that LO is just a build/deliverables/consumer focused entity, and doesn't have a developer interest as well. As long as they still do, then licensing is important. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war ~ John Adams - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Cor Nouws wrote: Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33) On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement about not talking to the press. Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's ideological stance will be a factor in breaking any cooperation. I did not say that. But it was said of the interview with Meeks, which we found out not to be true either. I must have significantly misinterpreted the below: However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run, Meeks said. They are sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that attempting to negotiate over changing any core aspect of it (such as the non-copy-left stance) is unlikely to be fruitful work. So - only time will tell. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote: Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's recommendation, than taxes. I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in a sense. Taxes were not an issue... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
On 6/4/2011 7:37 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: It is not relevant how ASF would answer these questions. You see, I think it is, and apparently other mentors do as well... I'm open to to possibility that a 6-month old open source association with a single project might have more flexibility, as an organization, than ASF, a 12-year old foundation, with a legal entity and nearly 170 projects. Note that in this case I am talking specifically about the organization, not the collective membership. That is why I explicitly directed the questions to the TDF Steering Committee, asking for an official response. I think this would be very useful. What you describe with respect to 'negotiations' on these points is what the officers of the ASF would generally defer to the project/ASF members, or not entertain at all as 'official positions'. You approached this survey, in my reading, as an inquiry to a division head, CTO or VP Engineering. Open source, including the ASF and also TDF, is not managed in the hierarchical fashion that your questions seem to be directed to. There was perhaps an opportunity for the small pool of TDF folks to have made adjustments (in fact, LGPL+MPL seems to be just one of these) at the very early stage when they were defining themselves, before inviting the world to participate in their umbrella with some definitions of what that umbrella was made of and what color it was painted. There was perhaps a second opportunity for the small pool of TDF folks to have made adjustments, prior to the announcement by Oracle, which might have compelled them to make changes justified by their interest in accepting stewardship of the code under terms Oracle insists on. But once users are invited to manage a community, and do so effectively, the management/decision making process flattens. Six months was more than enough time for TDF to make this transition, and it appears you no longer have a TDF management to negotiate with, but the community of contributors now unified under certain precipts. Everything is public now, and it will be up to the TDF community to make the hard decisions. I don't expect TDF's officers to make such public decisions without input from community, be it polls, votes, discussion threads as we are having here, or whatnot. You could ask these questions of RedHat management, or Novell management, but in asking this of open source management suggests to me that there is a serious disconnect in your understanding of meritocratic, open source software development as practiced at the ASF, at least. So what I wanted to communicate to you is that asking these questions of the Management of TDF Project is insulting to the individual members of their community. This poll is written to divide and put stakes in the ground, not to find common ground. This ASF incubation effort begs for some contribution by those same individuals, so your questionnaire seems counterproductive and destined to add antagonism, rather than remove some, and I'd suggest you withdraw it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: [Picking a random mail in this thread] I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal. I read Reliance on Salaried Developers ... Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major reason for establishing the project at Apache. Unless really relevant, I would suggest to leave that last sentence out. I guess no need to explain why ;-) It is actually... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they don't even know? How can one respond to the question (and the original one that predicated this one) without someone misinterpreting it as confrontational, self-serving or condescending? One issue that was, from all I have been told and heard, is that having OOo at some place with a known track record, with real FOSS street cred and the ability to work with other FOSS organizations as well as commercial entities was important. That it wasn't just getting rid of OOo but instead placing it someplace where it had the best chance to growth, thrive and prosper. I've also been told that Oracle and TDF did discuss moving OOo there, but that in addition to some requirements that were unacceptable, that TDF was still a foundation-in-creation. Reading over the blogs, it is even admitted that the complexity and time involved in creating one was underestimated. The concern was putting the life and longevity of OOo into, basically, an unknown quantity. With that in mind, the ASF (or Eclipse) is much different. We've been a foundation since 1999, and an active force since 1994. We have a legal structure, a non-profit 501(c)3 status, existing infrastructure, a healthy fundraising effort, a methodology and governance model that is copied and well respected, and a proven track record of building exceptional FOSS projects and communities. There are *obvious* things that, with OOo in mind, the ASF lacks that TDF has in spades: the build and distribution system is the one which has been mentioned most of all. There are things that the TDF lacks that the ASF has in spades. I don't see why we can't work together to use each other to fill in the holes that the other lacks. P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the OOo space, it is not just the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: You could ask these questions of RedHat management, or Novell management, but in asking this of open source management suggests to me that there is a serious disconnect in your understanding of meritocratic, open source software development as practiced at the ASF, at least. If these questions were directed to the ASF, I would feel empowered to answer them on behalf of the foundation in my role of VP, Legal Affairs. I will also note that some of my answers would differ from yours. In particular, I would point out that we require an ICLA before anybody becomes a committer, and I would also point out the relevant portions of the Apache License, Version 2.0 that covers contributions that may come in via mailing lists and bug tracking systems. So what I wanted to communicate to you is that asking these questions of the Management of TDF Project is insulting to the i ndividual members of their community. This poll is written to divide and put stakes in the ground, not to find common ground. This ASF incubation effort begs for some contribution by those same individuals, so your questionnaire seems counterproductive and destined to add antagonism, rather than remove some, and I'd suggest you withdraw it. Our emails may have crossed in the ether. My suggestion is that I take ownership of this question. I will state that I do not plan to proceed via this questionnaire. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Consideration of OpenOffice.org as a podling
I've just managed to wade through some 400+ emails to this list in the last 2 days and I would estimate that less than 10 were particularly relevant to what my vote will ultimately be on this proposal. It seems pretty clear to me that there is a lot of emotional reaction to this but a lot of that is from people who don't really seem to grasp what the incubator process, and perhaps the ASF itself, are about. First and foremost reading [1] followed by [2] and [3] should be a requirement before posting to this list. As I read all these posts I found myself wondering what the authors thought they were accomplishing. Many of the conversations here seem to be focused on whether OpenOffice belongs at the ASF because TDF is already in place and/or suggested that the proposal be evaluated while ignoring the licensing. Frankly, I believe most of the people who will vote on this proposal won't find these arguments very persuasive. We have admitted many projects in the past that seemingly duplicated other projects that already existed, in some cases right here at the ASF. Some were because they were choosing to achieve the same goals in a different way and some simply because the other alternative(s) were under a license that isn't equivalent to the Apache License. As a PMC member who will be voting on this I find the question of collaboration between this project and the TDF to be somewhat interesting but not a requirement for entry into the incubator. It is primarily something that should continue to be discussed on the project's development list once it is created. If this issue is relevant than I would expect it to manifest itself by having the proposal fail to gain enough initial committers, not by having some consensus reached before the project enters the incubator. I understand the desire of those who favor other alternatives to see those promoted, but at the ASF the way that is accomplished is by joining the project and working within the community to achieve your goals. The purpose of admitting projects to the incubator is not about having a fully functioning project upon admission. Rather it is to provide guidance, encouragement and support to projects that the incubator PMC believes have a reasonable chance at graduation into an Apache top level project. Discussions on whether the project will be able to perform builds, keep the documentation up to date, or even address all the Jira issues raised upon entry to the incubator simply aren't relevant at this time. These are all the things a project must be able to do to exit the incubator, not enter it. The primary factors I consider when voting on a project are: 1. Does the project have value that isn't already being fulfilled by some other project under a license equivalent to the Apache License (For example, Apache Harmony), or does the project try to achieve its goal in a way that is fundamentally different than another project? (We have several NoSQL variants here) 2. Will the project be able to have a fully functioning code base under the Apache License upon graduation? A project that requires a huge amount of code rewritten is going to have problems exiting the incubator in a reasonable amount of time. 3 Does the project have a significant number of dependencies on components with licenses that are incompatible with Apache software? Again, a project that requires a ton of rework is going to have problems. 4. Does the project have enough initial committers to a) effectively start to work on the tasks to get the project moving forward and b) attract other committers? 5. Has the project attracted a sufficient number of mentors who will have sufficient time to give to the project? There are many cases where mentors have signed up with good intentions but have not been effective due to time commitments. I am not trying to cut off discussion with this post. I am just pointing out that a lot of this is just noise and if this volume keeps up at some point I'll probably have to stop following OOo posts until I see a thread with [VOTE] in it. If the intent is to provide information the Incubator PMC members can use to cast a vote then I would recommend focusing on the list of items above, not discussions about LGPL vs ALv2, Oracle, IBM, Lotus Symphony, hardware, etc. Ralph [1] http://theapacheway.com/ [2] https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/incubation_at_apache_what_s [3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#incubator
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hello Jim, 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they don't even know? How can one respond to the question (and the original one that predicated this one) without someone misinterpreting it as confrontational, self-serving or condescending? One issue that was, from all I have been told and heard, is that having OOo at some place with a known track record, with real FOSS street cred and the ability to work with other FOSS organizations as well as commercial entities was important. That it wasn't just getting rid of OOo but instead placing it someplace where it had the best chance to growth, thrive and prosper. I've also been told that Oracle and TDF did discuss moving OOo there, but that in addition to some requirements that were unacceptable, that TDF was still a foundation-in-creation. Reading over the blogs, it is even admitted that the complexity and time involved in creating one was underestimated. The concern was putting the life and longevity of OOo into, basically, an unknown quantity. I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be kept, well, off the record. But then if everybody else comes up with his own version it might be necessary for TDF to bring its own version to the table. With that in mind, the ASF (or Eclipse) is much different. We've been a foundation since 1999, and an active force since 1994. We have a legal structure, a non-profit 501(c)3 status, existing infrastructure, a healthy fundraising effort, a methodology and governance model that is copied and well respected, and a proven track record of building exceptional FOSS projects and communities. There are *obvious* things that, with OOo in mind, the ASF lacks that TDF has in spades: the build and distribution system is the one which has been mentioned most of all. There are things that the TDF lacks that the ASF has in spades. I don't see why we can't work together to use each other to fill in the holes that the other lacks. I think I have expressed myself -and so did TDF- on our interest to work with ASF. We are discussing terms, and also how the general discussion is framed. But this being said I also do feel we're making progress, aren't we? P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the OOo space, it is not just the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*. I would rephrase this in a different way. This is Free Sofware, TDF's mission is to replace the OOo space with the LibreOffice space, and yes there are other players, but I feel that's somewhat obvious. :) Best, Charles.; - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Jun 4, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be kept, well, off the record. But then if everybody else comes up with his own version it might be necessary for TDF to bring its own version to the table. Sorry... I didn't mean to open a can of worms. What I wanted to do was ensure that people knew that there were discussions between TDF and Oracle (and Oracle/IBM) and that asking the ASF what's wrong with TDF or why Oracle/IBM didn't give it to us is both asking the wrong person as well as asking for heresay. It's just important for the people from the ASF side who do not know the history, and may be asking Why didn't Oracle/IBM chat w/ TDF to know that it *did* happen. I think I have expressed myself -and so did TDF- on our interest to work with ASF. We are discussing terms, and also how the general discussion is framed. But this being said I also do feel we're making progress, aren't we? I think we are, yes, and it's a great feeling... P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the OOo space, it is not just the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*. I would rephrase this in a different way. This is Free Sofware, TDF's mission is to replace the OOo space with the LibreOffice space, and yes there are other players, but I feel that's somewhat obvious. :) By point is that the Apache podling proposal is about OpenOffice.org, the entire community, and so while we need to ensure open lines of communication and collaboration and cooperation between the ASF and TDF, we (the ASF) must also ensure that other members of the OOo community and eco-system feel just as important to the discussion and the events. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I can see why some might read into those statements implications that probably were not intended. That is the problem with perspectives :-) I used these quote to illustrate that and to put that in parallel with the complaint about Michael Meeks being quoted by a journalist in terms deemed not pleasant toward Apache. Given any article out there and given any personal preference, one can always find something to be offended about if one squint hard enough :-) It's a one of these many things that cut both ways... Norbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice and the ASF
Quoting the full context for these at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html: The second is projects that implement free standards that are competing against proprietary standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do. In these special situations where copyleft is not appropriate, we recommend the Apache License 2.0. ... Considering that OO.o (and LibreOffice) support the ODF 1.0/1.1 OASIS Standards and the IS 26300:2006 International standards (with the ODF 1.2 Standard wrapping up), there is some interesting context that I hadn't noticed before. This also fits the notion of figuring out a multi-layered reference implementation that covers at least the demonstration of a framework for processing the OpenDocument Format as well as those standards that ODF relies upon by reference or selective mimicry (i.e., under ODF namespaces using common local names and related semantics). - Dennis -Original Message- From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktimh6aghcav1bdh1vncm7ateobh...@mail.gmail.com%3e Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 05:19 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF [ ... ] I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context. S. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OO/LO License
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is also the case that contributors of code to LibreOffice are required to affirm that their contributions are under LGPLv3+/MPL. Here is a quick overview of the ASF's distributions: All distributions from the Apache Software Foundation are made under the terms of the Apache License, Version 2. This includes contributions made via mailing lists and issue trackers. All committers are required to sign an ICLA. ASF distributions can not include material made available under LGPLv3. Unmodified MPL libraries may be included in binary form. The Apache License is (one-way) compatible with LGPLv3. Relevant links: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png - Dennis - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
Thanks Sam Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:13, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM: Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible? I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such questions without first understanding the consensus of the members I would be most displeased with my Board. To expect the TDF to treat their membership in this way is, IMHO, unreasonable. This should be a dialog not a set of binary choices. Indeed. It could always occur in multiple stages, with TDF getting feedback from their membership, etc., doing this in iterative rounds of discussions. I leave it to TDF how best to caucus. Would you acknowledge that having a direct negotiating session with 500 individual in not really practical, especially if those individuals have no authority over their organization's respective licenses? Or, in your experience, do you know of a better way? If so, please share. Unless anybody objects, I will personally take ownership of this issue. On the subject of licenses I *can* speak authoritatively on behalf of the ASF. I've engaged in the discussion both here and on the documentfoundation.org lists. The best summary I am aware of to date on this issue can be found at: http://s.apache.org/lY -Rob - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. Agreed, but that assumes that LO is just a build/deliverables/consumer focused entity, and doesn't have a developer interest as well. As long as they still do, then licensing is important. That's not my intent. Rather, I have tried to capture in writing the things I think it's easy to agree about and leave unsaid the things it is certain will cause an argument. Indeed, I believe that's close to the definition of consensus. But I do believe the developer intent of TDF to be profoundly different from the general developer ethos of ASF, so even in those contentious areas where ideology will come into play I am still optimistic there are ways to collaborate if we have the will to make it happen. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recuse as mentor?
I really can't see that as necessary Jim. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OO/LO License
On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is also the case that contributors of code to LibreOffice are required to affirm that their contributions are under LGPLv3+/MPL. Here is a quick overview of the ASF's distributions: All distributions from the Apache Software Foundation are made under the terms of the Apache License, Version 2. This includes contributions made via mailing lists and issue trackers. All committers are required to sign an ICLA. ASF distributions can not include material made available under LGPLv3. Unmodified MPL libraries may be included in binary form. The Apache License is (one-way) compatible with LGPLv3. Relevant links: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png I have been reading these email threads and some of the blogs over the last few days. I think there has been a great deal of education going on from all sides and it is great. Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two communities might mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is LO/TDF might contribute to Apache OO by providing portions of the LO codebase as MPL binary libraries. Sam, is this the direction you are leading us? Regards, Dave Fisher - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OO/LO License
PS: As far as I can tell, what none of those distributions do in their appeals to LGPL3 is carry any indication of where and how their source code can be found. Naughty, naughty. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 11:59 To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: charles.h.sch...@gmail.com; 'Jochen Wiedmann' Subject: RE: OO/LO License Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is also the case that contributors of code to LibreOffice are required to affirm that their contributions are under LGPLv3+/MPL. - Dennis [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OO/LO License
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two communities might mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is LO/TDF might contribute to Apache OO by providing portions of the LO codebase as MPL binary libraries. Sam, is this the direction you are leading us? While minor portions of a distribution which are unlikely to need to be modified may be made available under the MPL, it is not the intent of the ASF to produce distributions consisting substantially of materials made available under other licenses. In general, the philosophy is that there are lots of good licenses out there, and people should feel comfortable with their choice of license. If others wish to use the Apache License, they are of course welcome to do so, and need not give anything back either to us... or to anybody else. However those that wish to use a license other than the Apache License will need to do so elsewhere. Those that do so are welcome to make use of our code as long as they follow the generous terms of our license. This isn't about good/bad. It isn't an ideology. It merely is a definition of what the Apache Software Foundation produces. It sets an expectation of what our users can expect from us. Further details here: http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html Regards, Dave Fisher - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 19:42) I must have significantly misinterpreted the below: However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run, Meeks said. They are sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that attempting to negotiate over changing any core aspect of it (such as the non-copy-left stance) is unlikely to be fruitful work. So - only time will tell. Yes you did, Pls read my mail from 0:35 UTC last night in this thread. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OO/LO License
sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-) ## Manfred
Re: RE: OO/LO License
Maybe stop lurking :-) Your contributions will be valuable On 4 Jun 2011 22:06, Manfred A. Reiter ma.rei...@gmail.com wrote: sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-) ## Manfred
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
On 6/4/2011 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Our emails may have crossed in the ether. My suggestion is that I take ownership of this question. I will state that I do not plan to proceed via this questionnaire. I missed the *what* you were taking ownership of :) Coolio, and thanks. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
