Eric Hoch wrote: >Hi Eric, >Am Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:27:55 +0100, schrieb eric.bachard: > > >>Hi, >> >>James McKenzie a écrit : >> >> >>>Pavel Janík wrote: >>> >>> >>>Corrected URL: >>>http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2005/12/#e2005-12-18T20_09_25.htm >>> >>>Interesting article and thank you for posting it. >>> >>> >>To illustrate what I mean, I propose other interesting links too, >>and I invite everyone to *read carefully* the content : >> >> >> >> ><http://trinity.neooffice.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2063&start=60&sid=0a1a1758e2e279cb0d43c0fa83ef81cb> > > >> >> ><http://trinity.neooffice.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1733&start=135&sid=0a1a1758e2e279cb0d43c0fa83ef81cb> > > >>GPL against LGPL is too easy for GPL : what I see there is a one >>way contribution in fact. >> >> >>Please don't imagine something wrong. >> >>The problem is not to share code : I'm completely for free >>software, the problem is *who* is *really* working for Mac OS X >>port of OpenOffice.org. >> >> > >After reading this it looks like the OOo Team of Oliver, Tino, >Florian etc, does the daily basics and the rest of Neo/J takes this >code and puts the Neo/J GUI on top of it. > > > I would and do have a different opinion on this. Patrick/Ed work on the NeoOffice GUI that is placed on top of the OpenOffice.org code. If Oliver/Tino/Florian fix an OpenOffice.org code fault, then this is incorporated into the NeoOffice code. If they checkout and find a problem with the NeoOffice code this is brought back into the NeoOffice code. If Patrick/Ed/Dan/Mox/myself find a bug and fix in the OpenOffice code, we use the available fix process to get any fixes back into the OpenOffice.org code (and yes I have a signed JCA and my fixes did make it back into the OpenOffice.org codeline.)
>In between James and Mox try to live in both worlds and make the >best of it. I assume that they don't want to harm us OOo guys. > > > You assume (in my case) this is correct. I think that sitting around berating each other is a serious waste of time and effort that could move the OpenOffice.org Mac Porting way ahead of where it is today. I see this in the open war of words between Eric Bachard and Patrick Luby. This could be solved, but I'm not going to play moderator. I do this at my real job and it has taken a toll on my health. >Sadly I can only see that code moves from OOo into Neo/J but >because of GPL vs LGPL no code comes back from Neo/J into OOo. The >only problem I see is that Neo/J benefits from the work we do and >we don't take any benefit from teir work > > > Patrick has contributed back, on several occassions, his fixes. Take a look at the macxjoin1153 cws for a good example. Efforts to incorporate these fixes were halted when the 1.1.x code was basically abandoned. Patrick continues to contribute back code when/where it is applicable (you don't want multiple IZs for the same problem with attachments.) This is within the spirit and intent of both the GPL and LGPL. >Since we cannot avoid this we have to find other solutions for this >issue. > > What is your suggested solution? Right now I see the following: 1. A working Carbon port of OpenOffice 1.1.5 to the MacIntosh AQUA interface. Yes, this product needs improvements (I can name a few and have made a few suggestions). This project is outside the scope and control of Sun Microsystems (and that in and of itself is not a bad thing.) It is headed by a former Sun engineer and is independently funded through contributions of others. 2. A second and unnecessary competitor to the first. The goal of this team is to show that others can do what project 1 did using a different porting effort (Carbon versus Cocoa.) As this project moves forward, they are 'rediscovering' the problems encountered by Project 1 and are reaching the same conclusions as Project 1 in regards to the useage of the Cocoa interface. Also, Project 2 enjoys (for the time being) support from some major sponsors. 3. I am of the opinion that Project 2 will soon abandon its efforts as they find that Project 1 was right in the first place. However, I don't expect nor do I demand any apologies from the members of Project 2 to any member of Project 1. (Yes, I've been there and done that in my 'real' job.) However, I do expect the remaining members of Project 2 to assist Project 1 to improve Project 1 as they see fit. What does this mean? We should work together, set aside the programmer's egos, and get on with it. Right now, we have a total of over twenty people working on two projects. I believe in synergy and at the present time that exists in two different groups. Place both groups together, and the amount of individual effort required decreases, bugs and other problems will be solved much quicker and EVERYONE gets recognized for a very fine job. If the internal 'bickering' were made public, everyone would suffer and OpenOffice.org would not have to worry about a Mac port as there would be no need for one. Bottom Line: Lets stop picking on each other, work together and get an excellent Mac port done before Mactel becomes a reality (and this may happen as soon as NEXT week.) I, for one, am supporting the older, and more mature, of the two projects as it has a working, functional, product. This may change in the future as Project 2 matures. James --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
