Pavel,
Thank you for your perspective. I think a properly released OpenOffice.org
3.3.1 is totally possible.. I recall Martin came to the list with the idea. We
took separate paths. There is now a chance to bring these paths together.
But the discussion has to happen here on the Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
project list in public.
Oracle assigned the trademarks to the Apache Software Foundation and now the
ASF as a non-profit must hold that asset in trust for the public.
www.openoffice.org will be on Apache Infrastructure soon. It will remain.
Versions like 3.3.1 could be supported. Every committer to AOO has authority to
edit the website. Even that is under CTR.
I've spent a lot of time migrating the NLC project websites. The OpenOffice.org
ecosystem does indeed have an historical branding standard that is at odds with
Apache's. Team OpenOffice.org's name is an example. For the OOo ecosystem we
have a prefix - Team OOo, Greek OOo, Mongolian OOo, Foo OOo. For Apache it is
the other way - everything must be Apache Foo.
Who knows, it might even be possible to find a way to continue with
OpenOffice.org 3.4 as the next version. But to do that a very compelling
argument would need to be developed here in public.
Regards,
Dave
On Dec 21, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Pavel Janík wrote:
> [ Long mail from non-English native speaker, not written on mobile device ;-)
> ]
>
> Ross,
>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> Today Team OpenOffice released a "White Label Office" based off the
>> 3.3 code.
>
> ...
>
> I think the core issue here is "responsibility to users", "credibility of the
> product" and "bridging the gap between the last OOo and the first AOOo".
>
> It is very easy to feel like a member of the project that has just started,
> has no users (because there is no release yet) and has no history. And I
> perfectly understand it - I was in the same situation 9 or so years ago. I
> did not care at all about StarOffice users and I was very unhappy to see some
> references to it in OOo source code and even reported issues about such
> things (resulting in some ..._so modules etc.).
>
> It is not very easy when you have been living with some product, some
> project, and you were at the heart of the project for a long time, it was
> your daily bread, you know a lot of people who were using the product and
> want to use it in the future ("responsibility to users").
>
> I perfectly understand how Martin, Stefan and Matthias feel. I know them very
> well. I understand their motivation. And I trust them!!!
>
> ...
>
> All committers here do what they can to fix IP issues so Apache (WE!) can
> release AOOo. But Team OOo thinks it is not enough to bridge the gap.
>
> What has to be done now IMO?
>
> Team OOo:
>
> 1. work closely with Apache team to get trademarks cleaned up.
>
> 2. clean FAQ and fix other issues that arise on non-technical level.
>
> 3. join the work here (I can imagine how Matthias feels when he has to read
> all mails here ;-), explain your goals more clearly. Some people here do not
> get your goals (and it is not their fault! It is your fault - you are not
> expressing them well...).
>
> Apache:
>
> 1. help Team OOo bridge the release gap between OOo and AOOo (because it
> helps to bring legacy users forward to AOOo, smooths the transition) OR start
> thinking what can be done without Team OOo to bridge the gap.
>
> It is all about communication...
>
> Oracle did a lot of good to Apache but they did a lot of bad to
> OpenOffice.org users and developers. You can't choose only the first or the
> second part of the sentence. Both are true and you have to see them both.
> More and more I read (repeated) mails from "Apache only, not OOo" (sorry to
> say it this way) people, I see that you only see the first part of the
> sentence. That doesn't mean I'm saying the trademarks are here to be violated!
>
> Note: I have yet to see worst management decision than Oracle's decision to
> transfer OOo to Apache *this way*. They simply cut the costs throwing their
> users to the air and damaging their name in the community so badly that they
> will need another 10 years to get the same "sound". And additionally Apache
> (WE!) can't find the right solution to this "bridging the gap" problem
> (ideas? dual licensing, gradual IP cleanup?). Do WE (Apache) care at all? Do
> we see both sides of the coin?
> --
> Pavel Janík
>
>
>
