On 06/02/2011 03:40 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Florian Effenbergerflo...@documentfoundation.org wrote on 06/02/2011
06:39:12 AM:
This would not only be about reinventing the wheel, but also about
splitting the community, leading to disadvantages for end-users,
contributors, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/06/2011 19:22, Sam Ruby wrote:
Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and
I read it as a bona fide attempt by IBM to shove the project down the
throat of The Apache Foundation.
I hope we don't need to deliberate for
On 06/03/2011 07:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
No, they don't. But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the historic
opportunity to change their license to the Apache License, which makes it
much easier to (quoting you, now), cooperate with ASF to make the two
projects work as harmoniously as
On 06/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This
is about working together. This is about building a developer
and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip.
Jim, please be aware that OOo end user community is just huge, but
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
Hello everyone,
and thanks for the feedback to my initial mail. I've read many other
messages and blog postings, and would like to focus on just a hand full
of points that I think are crucial. Everything I leave out I do not
leave out because I consider it unimportant in general, but because
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here
[snip]
I hope I replied to all questions asked. If I missed something, this was not
on purpose, so feel free to ask again, and I will
- What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
a free office suite?
It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about that.
However, to the extent that it was driven by Oracle, that
Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
AM:
It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
is
licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document
Foundation
is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
- What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
a free office suite?
It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
and you probably won't get either Oracle or
On 6/3/2011 10:20 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others
can comment
much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play
together, and what
ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to replace their original
LGPL license
Hi Florian,
I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
at Apache or any other entity.
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure
On 3 June 2011 17:16, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF
Ian Lynch wrote:
Noel J. Bergman:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF should certainly be
On 3 June 2011 18:21, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote:
Noel J. Bergman:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being
transferred) for everyone's good.
And as a tangible, valuable asset, the ASF cannot, as a 501(c)3
non-profit just give it away to just anyone... in general,
the
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Hi Florian,
I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
at Apache or any other entity.
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:50, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
all
of the contributions it
, and the new
stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
under the mark.
- Original Message
From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
Community
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related communities.
If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
explained in the
On 6/3/2011 12:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
collaborate once
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
out his position. As I read it, we could license
the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
for, as Simon put it, business as usual distributions.
If we
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
out his position. As I read it, we could license
the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
for, as Simon put
Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 2:12:03 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
all
of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF
@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
Community?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Hi Florian,
I do see with great concern
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
the podling.
These are decisions the podling should be making.
They can only make those decisions if they know they have to make them. I
think it's
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. Yes, I
am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the
list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. It would
be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to
relicense all of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license
agreement, so is unable to relicense
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:27, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I think you need to allow a little time for people to read what has been
written, absorb and reflect on it, and react appropriately. And I'm not
(just) talking about ASF members--I'm talking about the potentially larger
community. Rushing things will not
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I
Whoops. Forgot to copy the list.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
No; there are some good
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim.
Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am
here on the list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and
misrepresented just for showing up.
This email has no place on this list. Take
, and the new
stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
under the mark.
- Original Message
From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.
...
Shane Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add
yourselves to the
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
ideological division as a given...
Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... that
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim.
Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am
here on the list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and
misrepresented just for
If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes,
we'll take it elsewhere and IBM can go it alone.
OK... I offer my apologies... I agree that this has gotten quite heated
and gone w offbase.
I admit my culpability in my actions which have allowed it and apologize.
And I offer a personal apology to Simon...
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim.
Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am
here
On 3 June 2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
ideological division as a given...
Well,
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
Which is exactly why I say we are where we are and we should deal with it
even if it is to agree to disagree on some things. Can we work together and
resolve issues so that people can enjoy using FOSS office software? That is
really the
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
ideological division as a given...
Well, the ASF
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:30, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to
relicense all of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
licenses alone and unlike ASF
On 6/3/2011 1:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.
You need to flush your cache... ~20 committers.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote:
Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by
people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already.
Your invitation to start the vote NOW comes across as a snarky drivers
seat
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:22, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote:
Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by
people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already.
Your
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
the podling.
These are decisions the podling should be making.
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes, we'll
take it elsewhere
Fair comment.
Please everyone, thus us the first experience many people are having of the
ASF. We (guests and ASF people) are better than
Re someone from ComDev... I'm seriously considering whether to sign up or
not. I am ready to vote but not sure I'm ready to mentor (it's a time
commitment thing).
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:30, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer
deliverable from
One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF
is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge*
and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience.
I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to.
This is a concise capture of a critical point.
TDF could decide to ignore
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
telling TDF they have to switch to another
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:29:23PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
I'm also suggesting it's
/such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
openoffice.orgresolve to a working and current site without
interruption that it deserves
a mention (preferably a plan - yes, unusual for an
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Danese Cooper dan...@gmail.com wrote:
I've just finished speaking to Greg Stein, and I'm also newly time-available
to help. I'd be willing to mentor, and Greg thought I could be of help.
An offer too good to pass up on. I've added you before you change your
Hi All,
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
the podling.
These are decisions the podling should be making.
Are you ready to call for a
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 19:57)
Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to
upgrade or modify their licensing.
Read the '+' in the licence ;-)
Cor
(still reading my way through, and understanding in the mean time that
at any moment constructive contribution is
Sam Ruby wrote (03-06-11 20:22)
Unable is a strong word. I given that we are talking about
historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be
possible to identify and reach out to those who made these
contributions. These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights.
Ah yes, and
Hi Rob,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (03-06-11 17:59)
Allen Pulsiferpulsi...@openoffice.org wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
AM:
It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document
Foundation
is willing to
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything. You are free to
disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say,
No thanks without suggesting that it is immoral for anyone else,
including your own
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'd like to challenge your assertion here, about splitting the
community, a nonsensical meme I'm hearing repeated in several venues.
Hi Rob - well, are you happier then with perpetuating the split?
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
Seems to me the main issue is
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
I wouldn't be too
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything. You are free to
disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say,
No thanks without
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on that point, can
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on
On 2 June 2011 17:18, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my
comment... huh?
Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was:
this was a missed opportunity to reunite - agree on that point - move on
This seems
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my
comment... huh?
Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was:
this was a missed
All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on
repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than
moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage
of the current opportunities that are now open to us, then
we need to adjust priorities a bit
+1
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on
repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than
moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage
of the current opportunities that are now
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related communities.
If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
explained in the proposal before we vote on it.
+1 (not binding)
Cheers,
Andreas
79 matches
Mail list logo
