Please see my comments below...
Graham Lauder wrote:
Deepankar Datta wrote:
Hi
This is a round up of the linuxworld 2005 expo written by an attendee,
with a sort of negative slant on OOo not attending, seen in these
choice quotes:
"But the biggest surprise wasn't who was there, but who wasn't--the
OpenOffice.org folks."
"The bottom line is that not having a booth hurts OpenOffice.org in
particular, and the whole Open Source movement in general."
The author also goes into Sun's relationship and licencing of OOo, and
IBM's own deriviative.
An interesting read, and the marketing lessons might be something to
think about for the future.
Deepankar
Unfortunately, he is right
It was raised on the list back in May
http://marketing.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=20446
Something flew under the radar here.
Are we seeing the beginning of the distancing of SUN from OOo.
Or is it simply that we have become so used to Erwin coming onto the
list and asking for volunteers, that when he didn't this time we just
missed it?
Have we become too reliant on SUN people hand feeding us this sort of
stuff?
Do we need a conference team as part of the marketing project whose
responsibility it is to keep the radar up for this sort of thing?
The following I exerpt from the Clay Clairborn piece:
********************************************************
The difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the LGPL lets
vendors link proprietary code to Open Source libraries without making
their code GPL. Apparently this is what IBM has done with its WorkPlace
office suite. Granted, WorkPlace does some truly innovative stuff for
network collaboration, but anyone familiar with Open Office will
recognize OpenOffice 1.1--but without credit to Sun or OpenOffice.org.
One shortcoming of the IBM approach is that while IBM claims its system
is compliant with the OpenDocuments standard, it really isn't, at least
according to Gary Edwards.
[Gary understands Workplace and OpenDocument best, so we can defer
to him. I haven't seen Workplace yet -- have only been reading --
but I believe IBM is shooting straight on this. If there is
"non-compliance" it is due to the technical reqs of Workplace. I
think there are XForms type functions & interfaces provided in the
WebSphere/Notes where they just dont need to implement certain
pieces from OOo.
IBM is certainly not obligated to contribute back to OOo has no
legal, moral or technical obligation to do so. This is due to the
SISSL/LGPL licences. I believe also that the way they are using OOo
components and code may lend itself to making any of their work
non-applicable to the OOo code base. I'm speculating here and
talking from partial knowledge, so please keep that in mind; and I
invite Gary or others to suggest where I may have it wrong. -sh]
Specifically it doesn't contain xforms, as OpenOffice 2.0 does and
which the European Union demands. This could be a problem for IBM and
vendors following its lead. While many people would like to think that
Sun bought Star Office simply to irritate Microsoft, the real reason has
more to do with its core business. Sun bought it for Solaris customers.
It seems that now that IBM has used that code to create a competing
product without making significant contributions to the Open Office
project, Sun's interest in Open Office has waned.
[Clay is speculating here. IBM's Workplace is very important
because it is desktop-agnostic and involves placing many employee
workflow processes through the **browser**-- something open
standards like OpenDocument and Linux need to get across the Chasm
(thank you Christian Einfeld & Geoffrey Moore). Food for thought:
if the OOo code base were GPL'd, then IBM's work would be available
to everybody -- IF it is useful to anybody. -sh]
I tried to get IBM's side of the story, starting with the WorkPlace demo
person on the Expo floor. I was quickly hustled up to the third-floor
IBM office to a communications manager who gave me the number of the IBM
Media Relations manager in Armonk. When he wasn't available, I was
turned over to his boss who wouldn't answer of my questions, but
suggested two other IBMers to try. Alas, one of them was on vacation and
the other in an all-day meeting. My conclusion is that IBM's position
towards OpenOffice.org is no credit, no code, no funding, and no
comment. Maybe that's why the LGPL says "we suggest you first think
carefully about whether this license or the ordinary General Public
License is the better strategy to use in any particular case."
[IBM have no obligation to comment, and Workplace is a
work-in-progress. But Clay's assessment is okay here. Be mindful
that IBM's actions are not controversial, although they may sponsor
Sun to make strategic adjustments. -sh]
*******************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
