On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 3 Jul 2011, at 19:43, Ross Gardler wrote: > > > >> But before we can > >> get to that point we need to address the technical differences between > >> the two code bases. LO is already 8 months or so adrift of OOo (or at > >> least that is what I am led to believe). > > > > It's worth observing that the code that new developers will be able to > work on at Apache is also likely to have significant differences from the > last release from the Sun/Oracle infrastructure, as well as a completely > different workflow. I suspect we'll all have no choice but to accept there's > a lot of refactoring and relearning to do whatever happens. > > > >> What happened to the plan for OOo and TDF people to get together? > > > > We attempted it here at FISL and had a good turnout to the sessions Jomar > Silva organised (and which I attended too). The result is a commitment (in > the form of a letter of intent signed by on behalf of the responsible > minister) by the Brazilian government to invest in both AOOo and > LibreOffice. I hope we'll have a news posting about it early in the week. > > > > It's tough, because there's a lot of emotion and history on both "sides", > but I agree with Jomar that it's possible to devise ways to work together. > One challenge we'll have with the new developers that Brazil will commit > will be getting engaged with the codebase. We think a great way for them to > do that now (rather than at an unknown point in the future) is to use the > "Easy Hacks" page that LibreOffice has put together to go start work on the > code now. > > > > I suggest we encourage others to do the same. Doing so is educational > and co-operative, and TDF are perfectly happy to accept contributions under > the Apache license. > > > > Simon, > > Any chance of TDF requiring Apache 2.0 for new code contributions, in > addition to their current requirement for LGPL/MPL? My reading of > their rules suggests that a simple majority of their Steering > Committee authorize such a change. Doing so would open up many more > possibilities for future collaboration and cooperation. Not doing so > would severely constrain possibilities for cooperation. > It's certainly worth asking, although I believe their current LGPLv3+MPL policy is more a suggestion than a requirement so it would ultimately be up to each contributor. Perhaps you could ask on the steering-discuss list[1]? S. [1] http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
