Hi :) A vague idea about possibly making money is not a clear objective. It lacks detail, time-scales, quantities and crucially it lacks urgency.
Isn't IBM Symphony based on OOo? So if OOo is being actively and aggressively developed then Symphony gains? Otherwise IBM would have to do all the development itself (or re-base to LO). Accessibility and Equality issues are making it into legislation in various countries and requirements that corporate organisations have to at least pretend to comply with. So, if the transfer of code is delayed then it makes OOo less viable for corporate clients. Regards from Tom :) --- On Fri, 9/9/11, Christophe Strobbe <christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be> wrote: From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be> Subject: (off-topic) Re: [libreoffice-accessibility] IAccessible2 / LibreOffice / OpenOffice.org To: accessibility@global.libreoffice.org Date: Friday, 9 September, 2011, 14:17 At 12:06 9-9-2011, Tom Davies wrote: > Hi :) > I think IBM have a lot of power in this relationship. If Oracle are being > slow about passing IBMs contribution to Apache then i think IBM might be able > to make that happen faster. I have no evidence that anyone is deliberately being slow. It may simply be a matter of resources that can be used for it. (But I admit I was beginning to lose my patience.) > I heard that Oracle and Apache are in court fighting each other at the moment > or fairly recently about things that are nothing to do with OOo. Oracle > seemed to be just playing with OOo without any really clear objectives other > than just trying to make money from it somehow. They seemed to treat it as > though it was a mill-stone around their neck because of it's OpenSource part. Making money is a very clear objective, if you ask me ;-) Not making enough money was why Sun got acquired by Oracle in the first place. (Sun also asked IBM if they wanted to buy them, but IBM said no.) > Apache have a strong passion for projects that are at least partly > OpenSource. IBM seems to need OOo to be developed with strength and > determination to be strongly viable against MS Office rather than just being > allowed to crumble. Straying off topic once more ;-) : >From IBM's point of view, which office suite should have been that competitor? >OpenOffice.org, IBM Lotus Symphony or both? IBM has an "IBM Lotus Symphony >Savings Calculator" at <http://www-03.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony/ROICalc.nsf/mainForm>. Not buying MS Office licenses for its 400,000 employees (or a bit less if you count only those who need an office suite) probably saves IBM enough money to finance OpenOffice.org / IBM Lotus Symphony development. > So it seems that IBM were able to push Oracle into handing OOo to Apache who > are not struggling as much as Oracle possibly hoped. Perhaps delaying the > transfer of IBM's gift is the most they can do to make things difficult for > Apache? Maybe IBM has some leverage there? Delaying the IAccessible2 code (if that is what is happening; we don't really know that; and Dennis Hamilton sent us a URL to the Mercurial CWS'es where that code may be available) does not benefit Oracle or create difficulties for Apache, as far as I can tell. The only victims would be people with disabilities on Windows who want to use a free and/or open source office suite, and this group is not involved in the lawsuit between Oracle and Apache. Best regards, Christophe > Regards from > Tom :) > > > --- On Fri, 9/9/11, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-accessibility] IAccessible2 / LibreOffice / > OpenOffice.org > To: accessibility@global.libreoffice.org > Date: Friday, 9 September, 2011, 3:46 > > I haven't looked into this issue as much as others, but what's left here > for IBM to do? It sounds like they've already donated the code. BTW, who > in IBM did you contact? I used to know some of the guys working on > accessibility inside IBM. > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to accessibility+h...@global.libreoffice.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/accessibility/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Twitter: @RabelaisA11y --- Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project www.aegis-project.eu --- Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to accessibility+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/accessibility/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to accessibility+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/accessibility/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
