Martin, On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > >> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>> Hi Martin; >>> >>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote: >>> ... >>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> ... >>>>> >>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo >>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software >>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream >>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy. >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know your plans. >>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of >>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team >>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0 >>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe >>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm >>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the >>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO. >> >> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache >> lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF. >> >> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to see >> your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's Subversion >> tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work. >> >> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work >> here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC >> that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the >> excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release. >> >> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim release >> plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging questions you >> might have. > > What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin > Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project, but have > never signed an iCLA. There are many more than four people involved. > > The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that OpenOffice.org > is a registered trademark of the Apache Software Foundation. > > The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project. > > I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly respectful > actions beforehand. The following text on the teamopenoffice.org site is still in place! > Your donation counts: Save OpenOffice.org! > The world needs a free, open source office software – but the genuine article > is under threat. We don’t want to let this happen! Ridiculous! openoffice.org is the Apache project - the genuine article is not under threat. It has been a month since: http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/213997/apache-disavows-team-openofficeorg-ev I really feel that the individuals on the project want to welcome Team OOo to the project, I know I do. It is my feeling that Team OOo should make a proposal to the AOOo PPMC about how they wish to use the OpenOffice.org brand. Regards, Dave > > Regards, > Dave > > >> >> - Shane >> >>>> >>> >>> As much as we would like to do an interim release I am >>> afraid there are issues that won't make it possible: >>> >>> - Apache releases have to be approved by the PPMC and >>> can only be released under an Apache License. >>> - The old OpenOffice.Org made available 3.4 RC, releasing >>> 3.3.1 would not give the right signal wrt continuity. >>> - The ASF, through the PPMC, cannot approve code that it >>> hasn't seen and AFAICT Team OOo hasn't been very visible >>> here in the community (sorry if I just missed it). >>> >>> This said, 3.4 is advancing very nicely. I don't want to >>> hurry things but I think we are moving in the right >>> direction. >>> >>> Pedro. >>> >>> >
