I don't think we are looking for public shaming of others. I think we are looking for 1. recognition and 2. mutual benefits, from what is being mentioned previously in this thread.
Lets assume conspiracy theory and everyone who isn't us is evil and that they are not contributing bug fixes they find in our code. They would be pulling code bugs from us that they already fixed but manually would have to override every time we make a release with new fixes. That doesn't sound reasonable, neither the first part about conspiracy nor the manual code fixing part. I would ask the dev list and see if anyone from AOO dev has built relationships with LO dev. If so what is the general mood and understanding of the relationship between the organizations? Friendly, untrustworthy, optimists, fake, mutual, one way. Is it that they need our help, or we need theirs? Is it because we can't seem to get over the fact we work for different organizations and we have a different name? Our goals seem generally aligned. I wouldn't assume they are malicious, but again I haven't been around AOO very long and also not involved with LO. I live thinking most people are not malicious and out to get or use me. At the same time I don't do anything I don't want to do, applies to anyone. Samer On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Kadal Amutham <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we should clearly frame a policy statement w.r.t code reuse by > others, and AOO taking code from other sources, put in the website for all > to know. > > With Warm Regards > > V.Kadal Amutham > 919444360480 > 914422396480 > > > On 6 June 2013 20:24, Louis Suárez-Potts <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 2013-06-06, at 16:38 , Kadal Amutham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This reminds me of a movie of Jackie Chan. I think the name of the > movie > > is > > > "Police Story". The movie comes to an end. Afterwards there was a short > > > film. A small boy was very hungry. His father steals a loaf of bread > > from a > > > bakery to feed his son. The police arrives at that time and kills the > > > father. Then Jackie Chan comes and consoles the boy, "This world is > very > > > bad. But we should live in righteous way" > > > > Your point is somewhat complicated by the fact that Jackie Chan has done > > tremendous work to remove the triads from informing the HK movie and > > Cantopop scene. And he's also recently gotten into some trouble for his > > efforts. (Just Google "jackie chan triads".) It's been a long fight of > his. > > But when he made Police Story A (I think it's the one you refer to, the > > homage to Buster Keaton; this was back in the 80s), the triads were > > profoundly dominant and determined not just what got made but who made it > > and for how much. Their control made (or makes) the studio regime in > > Hollywood (which ended mid-20th cent., more or less) pale by comparison. > > (Bollywood does not have anything like this, either, I believe.) As a > > result of the triads' control, actors like Chan (but one could also name > > many, many others) would make far more films each year than their > Hollywood > > compeers and for far less--and under far, far worse circumstances. (The > > film, Painted Faces, ostensibly about Samo Hung's and Chan's early > > training, I recall, could also be read as about the film industry in HK. > > But it's been years since I studied this, so my data are doubtless > rusty.) > > > > I don't think that we actually have an answer to the problematic that's > > been pointed out except the one I suggested: simply inform the world of > > what is actually going on. Right now, the world, which is to say that > > segment fed by the tech writers and who read self-serving blogs, believe > > that LO is the acme of originality and community and that AOO is the > spawn > > of something else. > > > > License allows for many things; that's its point. But being honest about > > one's doings and acknowledging debt is also very important in the > > construction of community. > > > > louis > > > > > > With Warm Regards > > > > > > V.Kadal Amutham > > > 919444360480 > > > 914422396480 > > > > > > > > > On 6 June 2013 19:54, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On 2013-06-06, at 02:23 , Kadal Amutham <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Thanks Andrea for the response. In general how our community feels > > about > > >>>> this process? > > >>> > > >>> This is the nature of open source. Equally, as Andrea points out and > as > > >> I think most would agree, what is crucial is acknowledging the > debt--and > > >> then also to pay it back by contributing *back* to OpenOffice. > > >>> > > >>> So, the issue is not that Libre Office or any other derivative uses > > >> Apache OpenOffice code, the issue is rather whether they contribute > > back to > > >> the project to which they are indebted. > > >>> > > >> > > >> And that is the great irony, or hypocrisy even. If you recall, LO > > >> touted the GPL as necessary to ensure that companies would share their > > >> code, and argued that adherence to a copyleft license was necessary to > > >> force corporations to behave. But now we see the main LO sponsors -- > > >> Redhat and Suse -- taking code, but refusing to share or cooperate. > > >> Their problem is they've formed a self-interested leadership group > > >> that benefits financially from the continued existence of LO. So > > >> anything that would end the fork would end their self-assigned > > >> privileges. > > >> > > >> -Rob > > >> > > >>> And the larger campaign is then to inform the tech press of the > > >> imbalance, if that is what it is. For right now, it seems that the > tech > > >> press wrongly believes that Libre Office is in the vanguard and that > > >> OpenOffice is limping along, in arrears. > > >>> > > >>> louis > > >>>> > > >>>> With Warm Regards > > >>>> > > >>>> V.Kadal Amutham > > >>>> 919444360480 > > >>>> 914422396480 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 6 June 2013 00:54, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On 05/06/2013 Kadal Amutham wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> In one of the threads, there was a discussion regarding source > code > > >> of AOO > > >>>>>> being used by LibreOffice. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This is correct and well known (well, maybe not as widely known as > it > > >>>>> should be). Code from all version of Apache OpenOffice has been > > reused. > > >>>>> Notable examples include Armin's SVG import and Andre's Sidebar > work. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If this happens this shall be considered as a credit by AOO > > community. > > >> We > > >>>>>> shall feel happy to share our code in full or in part. What we can > > >> expect > > >>>>>> in return is mention of contribution of code by AOO community. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> It is acknowledged most of the times, even though it is not done > very > > >>>>> prominently and at times individual contributors are credited > instead > > >> of > > >>>>> the Apache OpenOffice project (which would probably be clearer). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regards, > > >>>>> Andrea. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscribe@** > > openoffice.apache.org< > > >> [email protected]> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-help@openoffice.** > > >> apache.org<[email protected]> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > [email protected] > > >>> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
