Re: [steering-discuss] Having fixed-time calls
Hi, Florian Effenberger wrote on 2011-06-03 15.06: http://www.doodle.com/bqcd2u4g5w5nfzqr ideally, I would like to have feedback from all SC seat holders *and* their deputies. So, about 12 voices are still missing in the poll. :-) still just seven people. SC folks, I need your feedback... :-) I want to close the poll soon, so please cast your vote if you haven't already. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Donations page ...
Hi, Michael Meeks wrote on 2011-06-06 14.11: Is there any chance you could look into that, I think it'd make a big difference to our ability to fund travel to conferences, market, and hopefully start to pay for key infrastructure development. thanks a lot - indeed, a great idea! Since we don't advertise the challening page anymore, some more prominent information of the donation options would be great, especially on the downloads page. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:04 PM, NoOp wrote: Repeat. On 06/06/2011 06:05 PM, NoOp wrote: On 06/04/2011 05:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: ... Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle will keep :/ Interesting... Could you clarify that statement? 1. @ASF: What happens to OOo if ASF votes *not* to accept the OOo project into the incubator? And it that is the case, what happens to the OOo software that has been granted to the ASF by Oracle? ... Was it your intention to pop into this list with: Hello! I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine as well. and no longer respond to questions? The questions are, IMO, valid and are important - both for OOo and TDF/LO. Sorry I did not reply to this email in a timely manner... although I have replied to others, I did not have time to answer this one; I have been traveling and am at a conference and so sincere apologies for taking 2 days to reply. I think that should OOo not be approved as an incubator podling, then there are 3 main options. The first is that the ASF could refuse the grant, at which point they would remain Oracle property. I think that some people would want to do that; the ASF is not in the business of accepting stuff that it has no intention of using. The 2nd is that the ASF accept the grant and simply place the tarball on a server somewhere and say here it is. The ASF would let the OOo trademark die. The 3rd would be that the ASF would donate the code and the trademark to someone else; there is no guarantee that it would be to TDF or anyone else to TDFs liking, since we have no idea who it would be or could be donated to. I will say that it is unfortunate that there is sooo much distrust on both sides, because it really prevents us from having the type of open and honest discussions required. There are people who see TDF's resistance to working with the ASF as a simple ploy to get the ASF to donate the code (and trademark) to them, acting for what seems as what is in their best interest, rather than the best interest of the community in general. Same as those who see the ASF as more interested in taking over than in working with people. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
2011/6/8 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:04 PM, NoOp wrote: Repeat. On 06/06/2011 06:05 PM, NoOp wrote: On 06/04/2011 05:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: ... Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle will keep :/ Interesting... Could you clarify that statement? 1. @ASF: What happens to OOo if ASF votes *not* to accept the OOo project into the incubator? And it that is the case, what happens to the OOo software that has been granted to the ASF by Oracle? ... Was it your intention to pop into this list with: Hello! I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine as well. and no longer respond to questions? The questions are, IMO, valid and are important - both for OOo and TDF/LO. Sorry I did not reply to this email in a timely manner... although I have replied to others, I did not have time to answer this one; I have been traveling and am at a conference and so sincere apologies for taking 2 days to reply. I think that should OOo not be approved as an incubator podling, then there are 3 main options. The first is that the ASF could refuse the grant, at which point they would remain Oracle property. I think that some people would want to do that; the ASF is not in the business of accepting stuff that it has no intention of using. The 2nd is that the ASF accept the grant and simply place the tarball on a server somewhere and say here it is. The ASF would let the OOo trademark die. The 3rd would be that the ASF would donate the code and the trademark to someone else; there is no guarantee that it would be to TDF or anyone else to TDFs liking, since we have no idea who it would be or could be donated to. I will say that it is unfortunate that there is sooo much distrust on both sides, because it really prevents us from having the type of open and honest discussions required. There are people who see TDF's resistance to working with the ASF as a simple ploy to get the ASF to donate the code (and trademark) to them, acting for what seems as what is in their best interest, rather than the best interest of the community in general. Same as those who see the ASF as more interested in taking over than in working with people. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted Jim, thank you for your considered - and considerate ! - reply. The circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to take(as seems to me to be the case) be to accept the grant (in the event Oracle is offering it *nulla condicione astrictus*) and then donate both the code and the trademark to TDF, given the great work that the latter has been doing on LibreOffice ?... Henri -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:17 AM, M Henri Day wrote: Jim, thank you for your considered - and considerate ! - reply. The circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to take(as seems to me to be the case) be to accept the grant (in the event Oracle is offering it *nulla condicione astrictus*) and then donate both the code and the trademark to TDF, given the great work that the latter has been doing on LibreOffice ?... It's possible, sure, but if the ASF were to do this, then I would expect that they/we would spent quite a bit of time determining the best place for it... Not saying that it's not TDF, but who knows... Not a slam against TDF at all, just an honest statement that we don't know where it would go. (will likely be offline for the next several hours, if not more...) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 2011-06-08 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:17 AM, M Henri Day wrote: Jim, thank you for your considered - and considerate ! - reply. The circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to take(as seems to me to be the case) be to accept the grant (in the event Oracle is offering it *nulla condicione astrictus*) and then donate both the code and the trademark to TDF, given the great work that the latter has been doing on LibreOffice ?... It's possible, sure, but if the ASF were to do this, then I would expect that they/we would spent quite a bit of time determining the best place for it... Not saying that it's not TDF, but who knows... Not a slam against TDF at all, just an honest statement that we don't know where it would go. I honestly don't know how you can say that with a straight face... Where *else* would even be a *remotely* viable candidate? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Jim, Am 08.06.2011 18:25, schrieb Jim Jagielski: It's possible, sure, but if the ASF were to do this, then I would expect that they/we would spent quite a bit of time determining the best place for it... Not saying that it's not TDF, but who knows... Not a slam against TDF at all, just an honest statement that we don't know where it would go. I see no problem in that statement, as it is just what you say: honest. But a mail before you wrote: ... There are people who see TDF's resistance to working with the ASF ... I do not see, that this resistance really exists for two reasons: 1st It is up to the individuals to bring a project forward, so the TDF as abstract entity would do very abstract work only. If you have a look at the recent discussions, you may notice that many TDF members already gave a lot of input and helped Apache to make a good decision. I personally would consider this as working together (at least as a first step). 2nd I hope I'm allowed to be as honest as you are. I don't feel that ASF is the best place for the OOo trademark and source code. But I still consider Apache as a good place - so imho we are at a quite even level (unless you want to tell that TDF would be a really bad place for the OOo assets ;) ). regards, André (PS.: same rule here as at the Apache lists: I'm speaking as individual - not as TDF) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
1. @ASF: What happens to OOo if ASF votes *not* to accept the OOo project into the incubator? And it that is the case, what happens to the OOo software that has been granted to the ASF by Oracle? For what it's worth... Reading the tea leaves, I will be very surprised if the OOo podling does not get accepted into the Incubator. Marvin Humphrey -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:17, M Henri Day mhenri...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/6/8 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com ... The 2nd is that the ASF accept the grant and simply place the tarball on a server somewhere and say here it is. The ASF would let the OOo trademark die. I've said elsewhere (and earlier in this thread) that this option would be my favorite. ... Jim, thank you for your considered - and considerate ! - reply. The circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to take(as seems to me to be the case) be to accept the grant (in the event Oracle is offering it *nulla condicione astrictus*) and then donate both the code and the trademark to TDF, given the great work that the latter has been doing on LibreOffice ?... We do not have a transferable right on the software grant. So we can't give the code to TDF. We certainly can provide the code under the ALv2 license for TDF to pick up. We don't have the OOo trademark or website yet, but I believe we'll be getting rights to those. Should things fall apart in the Apache project, then yeah... we'd be interested in transferring those away. But it looks like we want to give the project a chance to succeed, so such a transfer would be premature right now. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 6/8/11 5:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I think that should OOo not be approved as an incubator podling, then there are 3 main options. I sincerely hope that OOo is approved as an incubator podling, because any other option would be a defeat for free software in general and for OOo in particular. Of course, TDF would have preferred a different path of evolution, but I understand that the non copy-left license (which we don't like) is a factor for IBM for having the project at ASF. I will say that it is unfortunate that there is sooo much distrust on both sides, because it really prevents us from having the type of open and honest discussions required. There are people who see TDF's resistance to working with the ASF as a simple ploy to get the ASF to donate the code (and trademark) to them, acting for what seems as what is in their best interest, rather than the best interest of the community in general. Same as those who see the ASF as more interested in taking over than in working with people. I think that we should look more at what we can get from each other than everything else. Speaking from TDF side, I have seen ASF too much confident in its ability to manage whichever FLOSS project. TDF knows more about OOo than most other people (I think that the analisys of the files donated by Oracle is a demonstration, and shows co-operation), at any level, and should be respected for that. On the other hand, ASF members should start building their opinions about TDF from other sources than the rumors spread by individuals who, for personal reasons, do not like TDF (you can find any flavour of them around the Internet, and some of them have signed as committers). -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation email italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com On the other hand, ASF members should start building their opinions about TDF from other sources than the rumors spread by individuals who, for personal reasons, do not like TDF (you can find any flavour of them around the Internet, and some of them have signed as committers). Like all the venom towards Oracle, OOo, and ASF that has been spewed by TDF members and contributors on this topic over the last few days? I'm more of an outside observer on all of this, and have tried to keep up on the topic to see where things go, but there's not much better way to put it (sadly). TDF as an organization did respond well to the announcement, but the TDF/LO community has not, and you don't have to look to IBM or Oracle or anyone else to see that; which is quite sad. It's not a matter of rumor - just read the archives. I'm quite pleased to see the ASF members (at least here) not taking offense but continuing to act very diplomatically throughout all of this. (That said, I haven't paid nearly as much attention to the Apache Mailing Lists.) $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
Hi, I almost forgot about that, as it is not a summit but may be the earliest date for a meeting. http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/DE/QAWochenende2011 So if some of you live rather close to Essen/Germany you may join us there. It would be helpfull to understand / speak German, as it is a meeting of the German community members. We used to have this as annual meeting with focus on QA and localization for some years now. But it is always a nice event to get to know each other, have barbecue, pizza and beer (or whatever you like ;) ) If you like to join, please notify Jacqueline and prefferable disc...@de.libreoffice.org. There are still some places left to stay overnight (but please be aware the we only have double rooms). regards, André PS.: -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 14:04, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: ... I'm quite pleased to see the ASF members (at least here) not taking offense but continuing to act very diplomatically throughout all of this. (That said, I haven't paid nearly as much attention to the Apache Mailing Lists.) There is certainly a good bit of defensiveness from Apache people over on the other list. Just kind of the nature of things. I'm just looking forward to a vote on the danged podling so that we can start getting real work done. Most of the discussion has died down now. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 2011-06-08 2:04 PM, BRM wrote: Like all the venom towards Oracle, OOo, and ASF that has been spewed by TDF members and contributors on this topic over the last few days? Very little of the negative reaction has been directed at the ASF, mostly it is directed at Oracle... Personally, I think it is silly - LibO obviously has moved way past where OOo was, so it is imho a non issue... Rest in peace, OOo... long live LibO! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Henri wrote: The circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to take(as seems to me to be the case) be to accept the grant (in the event Oracle is offering it *nulla condicione astrictus*) Assuming that Oracle is offering the code, trademarks, etc to The Apache Software Foundation under the usual Apache Software grant (http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt), I'm not convinced that The Apache Software Foundation could make that donation. Whilst Distribute and sublicense is legally acceptable, a flat out donation is skating on thin ice. (The exception would be if The Apache Software Foundation was being dissolved, and in that specific situation, the code would have to be donated under the Apache License to an organization that had 501(c)(3) status. Equivalent status in a jurisdiction outside of the United States does not count.) Furthermore, whilst it is fine to ask for the donation, lawyers from both The Apache Software Foundation and The Document Foundation would have to verify that the donation was legal in both jurisdictions. (United States, and Germany.) (Going by memory, the paperwork to solicit donations in DE is only 20 pages long, and about 30 days to complete.) Jim wrote: then I would expect that they/we would spent quite a bit of time determining the best place for it.. That place being somewhere that The Apache Software Foundation can place the code, and be in compliance with US Law, Delaware Law, The Apache Software Foundation by-laws, the laws of the state that the recipient organization is in, and the by-laws of the organization in which it is placed. Somewhere that the Apache Software Foundation legal team can ensure that is kosher for _both_ parties. TANSTAAFL wrote: Where *else* would even be a *remotely* viable candidate? There might be no viable candidates. Just because _The Document Foundation_ has filled out most of the paperwork for Germany, does not mean that it can be the recipient of any donations from the United States. For starters, has The Document Foundation filled out any of the legally required paperwork to solicit donations in any state of the United States? (Fortunately, the same form can be used in most of the states. However, it still has to be customized for each state.) I'd suggest that the reason Oracle apparently ignored the letter sent by The Document Foundation to them, was to avoid any potential penalties imposed by the State of California. Whilst the penalty is chump change, it is cheaper to avoid the potential situation of having to pay that penalty in the first place. Especially when you are giving something away. jonathon - -- If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting. If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth requesting. DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN79oYAAoJEERA7YuLpVrVKw4H/iWX9UgdTGfzNYrJH6AeP9NJ /bmbgXXaakIGStWkWsWH4qJEVpQVm4EzjNRjeI5wm5JA/qZIkT60GNK8LkF8oZLV wWt7QPh0YDp3EFQKW34+FlxIL5AkjZaDRJDMtZ9LO3UHoiXoCpdaZWAAusz1zhlP dZUjszM9gM3+8XaOAwNMTrutQBRXHCUqeGokzb6h0MIQ6ubXj3j/Y1680eJ4XAKK q9gA+y7UzV3ZYF1hFCEk5iBiJJ2zoKaJsylVINTIZ/rAUwYl8OCW2j3IJwufa4Qf WzFqS+i6DrDS6TB9INTtuDewVVms09zS91Cj9TI1au5nbUF8Hnnw8E+lzjDn65A= =MjIw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
2011/6/8 toki toki.kant...@gmail.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Henri wrote: The circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to take(as seems to me to be the case) be to accept the grant (in the event Oracle is offering it *nulla condicione astrictus*) Assuming that Oracle is offering the code, trademarks, etc to The Apache Software Foundation under the usual Apache Software grant (http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt), I'm not convinced that The Apache Software Foundation could make that donation. Whilst Distribute and sublicense is legally acceptable, a flat out donation is skating on thin ice. (The exception would be if The Apache Software Foundation was being dissolved, and in that specific situation, the code would have to be donated under the Apache License to an organization that had 501(c)(3) status. Equivalent status in a jurisdiction outside of the United States does not count.) Furthermore, whilst it is fine to ask for the donation, lawyers from both The Apache Software Foundation and The Document Foundation would have to verify that the donation was legal in both jurisdictions. (United States, and Germany.) (Going by memory, the paperwork to solicit donations in DE is only 20 pages long, and about 30 days to complete.) Jim wrote: then I would expect that they/we would spent quite a bit of time determining the best place for it.. That place being somewhere that The Apache Software Foundation can place the code, and be in compliance with US Law, Delaware Law, The Apache Software Foundation by-laws, the laws of the state that the recipient organization is in, and the by-laws of the organization in which it is placed. Somewhere that the Apache Software Foundation legal team can ensure that is kosher for _both_ parties. TANSTAAFL wrote: Where *else* would even be a *remotely* viable candidate? There might be no viable candidates. Just because _The Document Foundation_ has filled out most of the paperwork for Germany, does not mean that it can be the recipient of any donations from the United States. For starters, has The Document Foundation filled out any of the legally required paperwork to solicit donations in any state of the United States? (Fortunately, the same form can be used in most of the states. However, it still has to be customized for each state.) I'd suggest that the reason Oracle apparently ignored the letter sent by The Document Foundation to them, was to avoid any potential penalties imposed by the State of California. Whilst the penalty is chump change, it is cheaper to avoid the potential situation of having to pay that penalty in the first place. Especially when you are giving something away. jonathon - -- If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting. If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth requesting. DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN79oYAAoJEERA7YuLpVrVKw4H/iWX9UgdTGfzNYrJH6AeP9NJ /bmbgXXaakIGStWkWsWH4qJEVpQVm4EzjNRjeI5wm5JA/qZIkT60GNK8LkF8oZLV wWt7QPh0YDp3EFQKW34+FlxIL5AkjZaDRJDMtZ9LO3UHoiXoCpdaZWAAusz1zhlP dZUjszM9gM3+8XaOAwNMTrutQBRXHCUqeGokzb6h0MIQ6ubXj3j/Y1680eJ4XAKK q9gA+y7UzV3ZYF1hFCEk5iBiJJ2zoKaJsylVINTIZ/rAUwYl8OCW2j3IJwufa4Qf WzFqS+i6DrDS6TB9INTtuDewVVms09zS91Cj9TI1au5nbUF8Hnnw8E+lzjDn65A= =MjIw -END PGP SIGNATURE- Thanks, Toki - problems of the type you describe are the reason I added the stipulation «nulla condicione astrictus». But you are no doubt entirely correct - one can't just give things away ; instead the recipient has to demonstrate that they fulfil certain specifications. Otherwise, the lawyers and legislators - all too often in the same person - would feel themselves left out. As I see it, the upshot of the matter is that TDF would best be advised to devote its limited resources to improving LibreOffice, rather than to working to please the lawyerly mind Henri -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:36 PM, M Henri Day wrote: left out. As I see it, the upshot of the matter is that TDF would best be advised to devote its limited resources to improving LibreOffice, rather than to working to please the lawyerly mind I would suggest, as an outsider, that TDF continue the lawyerly efforts in finalizing its foundation, non-profit, governance, models. There is nothing worse, or more dangerous, than an almost created foundation. ;) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Interesting
Brian Proffitt http://www.itworld.com/software/172393/plea-save-openofficeorg-apache mentioning http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567 Steven Vaughan-Nichols http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/libreoffice-motors-right-along-with-a-new-release/9048 -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] New Member
Hello. My name is Klaibson and yesterday me signed up in the LibreOffice in the FreeDesktop. I living in the Florianópolishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian%C3%B3polis, capital of Santa Catarinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catarina_%28state%29, Brazil. I'm leader user group LibreOffice in my state. I blog on LibreOffice in the Brazil, look www.brofficeparaleigos.org and writing and write the ebook LibreOffice. Good week. -- Klaibson Ribeiro Tel: (48) 9625-8273 www.creativesolucoes.com.br -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2011-06-08 2:04 PM, BRM wrote: Like all the venom towards Oracle, OOo, and ASF that has been spewed by TDF members and contributors on this topic over the last few days? Very little of the negative reaction has been directed at the ASF, mostly it is directed at Oracle... Personally, I think it is silly - LibO obviously has moved way past where OOo was, so it is imho a non issue... Rest in peace, OOo... long live LibO! I sincerely wish that this were the prevailing opinion. With the time that has passed since the realization of the fork, with the time it will take before an OOo-ASF product becomes a reality, OpenOffice.org is in serious trouble. The last release was based on momentum from the time of the fork. I concur; let's take care of improving and fixing the present bugs in LibreOffice-3.4 and stop worrying over things that we are unable to change. All of this energy in this list would be better spent on LibreOffice. saludos, Richard. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Op 6-6-2011 10:38, Simos Xenitellis schreef: Let's read the document you cite, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html A permissive license is recommended/suggested in two cases, when a. «very small projects» b. «projects that implement free standards that are competing against proprietary standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video)» I cannot fit OpenOffice in any of these criteria. Doesn't OpenOffice.org implement the free standard ODF, which is competing against the MS Office standard file formats? -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote: A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non- TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is incorporated in Germany, not the United States. That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)? -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote: A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non- TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is incorporated in Germany, not the United States. That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)? I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs there... being independent is quite important to a number of FOSS ecosystem people... While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying that you don't think TDF is independent. Please can you explain what you mean? Thanks. S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote: A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non- TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is incorporated in Germany, not the United States. That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)? I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs there... being independent is quite important to a number of FOSS ecosystem people... While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying that you don't think TDF is independent. Please can you explain what you mean? People may just be curious about TDF being backed by“Freies Office Deutschland e.V.” as well as an associated project in Software in the Public Interest (SPI). What does being backed by them mean? How independent is it from these 2 entitied? Just questions like that. Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Cheers! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:12, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote: A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non- TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is incorporated in Germany, not the United States. That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)? I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs there... being independent is quite important to a number of FOSS ecosystem people... While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying that you don't think TDF is independent. Please can you explain what you mean? People may just be curious about TDF being backed by“Freies Office Deutschland e.V.” as well as an associated project in Software in the Public Interest (SPI). What does being backed by them mean? How independent is it from these 2 entitied? Just questions like that. As I understand it FrODeV is hosting the incorporation launch of TDF, and SPI is providing stewardship of funds outside Germany. SPI is a very well-known, respected and trusted non-profit originally set up to host Debian's assets and who never interfere in the affairs of the organisations to which they provide this stewardship service. Right now TDF appears to be essentially a project of FrODeV, itself an independent non-profit, and thus there's no hint of any dependency on a for-profit entity. Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop. S. [1] http://webmink.com/essays/sentinels/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop. Agreed... the only reason I mention independent is that even a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip that in the bud. Cheers! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop. Agreed... the only reason I mention independent is that even a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip that in the bud. I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen. The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule-based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so. S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Interesting
Hi Italo, *, thanks for the pointers. Italo Vignoli schrieb: This - sorry - is hot air: Brian Proffitt http://www.itworld.com/software/172393/plea-save-openofficeorg-apache This one saves me much time writing my summary after digging the incubator mails: mentioning http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567 [..] Gruß/regards -- Friedrich Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/ LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Don Harbison Program Director, IBM ODF Initiative Tel. +1-978-399-7018 Mobile: +1-978-761-0116 Email: donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/08/2011 07:55:02 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Date: 06/08/2011 07:55 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join ApacheOpenOffice On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop. Agreed... the only reason I mention independent is that even a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip that in the bud. I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen. The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule- based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so. Is there something useful to be said here? If so, what is it? Non-sequitur? S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/08/2011 08:56:17 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Date: 06/08/2011 09:00 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join ApacheOpenOffice On 9 Jun 2011, at 01:47, donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote: Don Harbison Program Director, IBM ODF Initiative Tel. +1-978-399-7018 Mobile: +1-978-761-0116 Email: donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/08/2011 07:55:02 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Date: 06/08/2011 07:55 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join ApacheOpenOffice On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the 'independent' part is important. Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop. Agreed... the only reason I mention independent is that even a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip that in the bud. I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen. The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule- based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so. Is there something useful to be said here? If so, what is it? Non-sequitur? I'm not sure what you mean by that, honestly (and welcome to the list by the way, perhaps you should introduce yourself). But you really need to get that mailer of yours sorted out, it keeps top-posting a huge signature block each time you reply. Yes, I am now properly chastised. Well, so be it. Blame it on my newbie-ness. With respect to my introduction, I think you must have been off making very professional photographs and did not notice my post[1] I'm also a passionate photographer, and welcome an opportunity to share with you. Peace. /don S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 9 Jun 2011, at 02:26, donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote: With respect to my introduction, I think you must have been off making very professional photographs and did not notice my post[1] Was that cross-posted here too? I didn't see it in my TDF mailbox when I looked (which may just be down to the deluge of mail that's arisen from this debacle). I'm also a passionate photographer, and welcome an opportunity to share with you. Peace. Nice :-) Wondering if I need a new camera actually, it's been a while. S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 06/08/2011 08:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:04 PM, NoOp wrote: Repeat. On 06/06/2011 06:05 PM, NoOp wrote: On 06/04/2011 05:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: ... Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle will keep :/ Interesting... Could you clarify that statement? 1. @ASF: What happens to OOo if ASF votes *not* to accept the OOo project into the incubator? And it that is the case, what happens to the OOo software that has been granted to the ASF by Oracle? ... Was it your intention to pop into this list with: Hello! I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine as well. and no longer respond to questions? The questions are, IMO, valid and are important - both for OOo and TDF/LO. Sorry I did not reply to this email in a timely manner... although I have replied to others, I did not have time to answer this one; I have been traveling and am at a conference and so sincere apologies for taking 2 days to reply. ... Thanks appreciate the informative reply. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
当前OOo的现状。主要从ASF和IBM角度来看。 - Original Message - From: Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org To: libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org; discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 10:06 AM Subject: [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice Greetings All, Some of you will remember me as a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community. In fact, back in the day, it was sometimes just myself and Michael Meeks who were openly complaining on the OOo mailing list about Sun's handling of the community :-) I'm writing today about what is going on over at the Apache project. When I heard Oracle was donating the OpenOffice code to the Apache project, I headed over there to see what was going on. I offer this brief report to bring everyone up to speed: - According to officers of the Apache Software Foundation, Oracle donated OpenOffice to the ASF by executing the ASF's standard copyright grant. This grant allows the ASF to release the OpenOffice code under the Apache License. - The ASF however has a process to accept a project. The OpenOffice project is now in the proposal stage. If accepted, it will join the Apache Incubator and become a podling, which is basically a project-in-development. During the podling stage, the project would be expected to complete the steps needed to become a full ASF project. Among other requirements, the podling project has to review the copyright history of all code to ensure it has a clean title and is or can be licensed under the Apache License. If it completes that process, it then becomes a full Apache project. See https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/incubation_at_apache_what_s - While the code donation was made by Oracle, the primary champion in the effort to get the code accepted as is Apache Project is IBM. Let's have no illusions or delusions about this. IBM has a self-interested motive in championing this project. Basically, IBM would like to setup a community where both it and other contributors make contributions under the Apache License, and then IBM would take some or all of those contributions and use them in its proprietary products which includes for example IBM Lotus Symphony. The Apache License specifically allows this. In fact, the Apache License allows anyone to take the code and use it in their own project, open source or closed source. In the Apache world, that is considered a feature not a bug. The ASF would like to see as many people using the code as possible, and for that reason, their license is as liberal as possible, allowing anyone to use the code. That is exactly the reason that IBM is championing this as an Apache Project, rather than a LGPL project. And that brings me (almost) to the point of this email. Any code contributed to the Apache OpenOffice project could be used by anyone, including The Document Foundation, which can take the code, integrate it into LibreOffice, and release it under the LGPL. Sounds like a good deal, huh? Here's the rub. IBM, as I mentioned, is doing this for self-interested reasons. I would like to propose the members of LibreOffice community get involved in this for similarly self-interested reasons. I understand there are some bad feelings toward IBM. Basically, there is the perception that IBM has been taking OpenOffice code all of these years and contributing little back to the OpenOffice community. That is probably true. As far as I can see, IBM has at least been taking much more than it has given back. I'm not sure that can continue though, because as the champion of the proposed Apache OpenOffice project, IBM is going to have to contribute. So you might say though, why not just sit back, let IBM make contributions to Apache OpenOffice, and then we'll just cherry pick what we want for LibreOffice. Well that would certainly work, but I don't think it would work as well as getting involved. There is also another player in this, and that is the Apache Software Foundation. The ASF is an honorable organization with a long track record in open source and they are dedicated to fostering a community. In the ASF, anyone can contribute. Contributions and participation are made by individuals, not by or on behalf of companies or organizations. The community determines the direction of the project. Membership in the community is based on merit, which is measured not just by code contributions, but by anything that supports the project, which could also include documentation, testing, bug reports, etc. So while the LibreOffice could just sit back and cherry-pick the project, if its members get involved, they can help determine the direction of the project, ensuring that the project direction and design decision are compatible with LibreOffice and have the maximum value to LibreOffice. The ASF has no problems with this--in fact, they encourage it. Just as IBM is getting
Re: [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi All, I am terriblely sorry regarding my last email which should be private. Please ignore it. And forgive me! Best Chao - Original Message - From: Chaosun sunc...@redoffice.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Cc: lih...@redoffice.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice 当前OOo的现状。主要从ASF和IBM角度来看。 - Original Message - From: Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org To: libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org; discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 10:06 AM Subject: [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice Greetings All, Some of you will remember me as a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community. In fact, back in the day, it was sometimes just myself and Michael Meeks who were openly complaining on the OOo mailing list about Sun's handling of the community :-) I'm writing today about what is going on over at the Apache project. When I heard Oracle was donating the OpenOffice code to the Apache project, I headed over there to see what was going on. I offer this brief report to bring everyone up to speed: - According to officers of the Apache Software Foundation, Oracle donated OpenOffice to the ASF by executing the ASF's standard copyright grant. This grant allows the ASF to release the OpenOffice code under the Apache License. - The ASF however has a process to accept a project. The OpenOffice project is now in the proposal stage. If accepted, it will join the Apache Incubator and become a podling, which is basically a project-in-development. During the podling stage, the project would be expected to complete the steps needed to become a full ASF project. Among other requirements, the podling project has to review the copyright history of all code to ensure it has a clean title and is or can be licensed under the Apache License. If it completes that process, it then becomes a full Apache project. See https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/incubation_at_apache_what_s - While the code donation was made by Oracle, the primary champion in the effort to get the code accepted as is Apache Project is IBM. Let's have no illusions or delusions about this. IBM has a self-interested motive in championing this project. Basically, IBM would like to setup a community where both it and other contributors make contributions under the Apache License, and then IBM would take some or all of those contributions and use them in its proprietary products which includes for example IBM Lotus Symphony. The Apache License specifically allows this. In fact, the Apache License allows anyone to take the code and use it in their own project, open source or closed source. In the Apache world, that is considered a feature not a bug. The ASF would like to see as many people using the code as possible, and for that reason, their license is as liberal as possible, allowing anyone to use the code. That is exactly the reason that IBM is championing this as an Apache Project, rather than a LGPL project. And that brings me (almost) to the point of this email. Any code contributed to the Apache OpenOffice project could be used by anyone, including The Document Foundation, which can take the code, integrate it into LibreOffice, and release it under the LGPL. Sounds like a good deal, huh? Here's the rub. IBM, as I mentioned, is doing this for self-interested reasons. I would like to propose the members of LibreOffice community get involved in this for similarly self-interested reasons. I understand there are some bad feelings toward IBM. Basically, there is the perception that IBM has been taking OpenOffice code all of these years and contributing little back to the OpenOffice community. That is probably true. As far as I can see, IBM has at least been taking much more than it has given back. I'm not sure that can continue though, because as the champion of the proposed Apache OpenOffice project, IBM is going to have to contribute. So you might say though, why not just sit back, let IBM make contributions to Apache OpenOffice, and then we'll just cherry pick what we want for LibreOffice. Well that would certainly work, but I don't think it would work as well as getting involved. There is also another player in this, and that is the Apache Software Foundation. The ASF is an honorable organization with a long track record in open source and they are dedicated to fostering a community. In the ASF, anyone can contribute. Contributions and participation are made by individuals, not by or on behalf of companies or organizations. The community determines the direction of the project. Membership in the community is based on merit, which is measured not just by code contributions, but by anything that supports the project, which could also include documentation, testing, bug reports, etc. So while the
