Re: [steering-discuss] Request for official statement about dedicated logos for community groups
Hi Bernhard, Bernhard Dippold wrote on 2011-06-10 00.25: There has been a reply by Sophie, but I didn't make out any formal SC discussion or decision on this topic. As this covers more than just design and visual identity questions (definition of teams, how to advertise teams and external groups) I don't think that this decision should be left to any of the teams like marketing or design. I'll try to discuss this during the next SC call. 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] proposed bylaws changes
Hi, Michael Meeks wrote on 2011-06-13 17.19: Counting votes we had: Florian, Charles, Andre, Olivier, Italo and Sophie voting in favour; so I've made all of the edits in the wiki. thanks a lot, Michael! I will ask the German community to translate the changes back. :) Thanks to everyone who contributed! (Oh, and David, I never thought you would do the bank account thing, don't worry ;) 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] proposed bylaws changes
Hi Toki, toki wrote on 2011-06-10 19.16: When I was reading German law on non-profits, my impression was the By-Laws had to specify how members of the board of directors, and any advisory board were selected, and mid-term replacements done. I don't see anything in the by-laws that specifies how mid-term replacements are done. Is that not legally required? we have some rules on that, like Each member of the BoD must appoint one Community Member as deputy who can replace her/him in case of need, and who has the same rights during her/his period of absence or unavailability. or The Chairperson can be discharged and replaced by the BoD at any time. However, it indeed might be needed that we incorporate some more details into the binding statutes we are currently preparing. I have details on this soon. Thanks for pointing this out! 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] Fwd: Google Alert - libreoffice
Italo, 2011/6/13 Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com It looks like media are on our side. Ask LH: Am I Missing Out By Sticking With Open Source And Not Buying Microsoft ... on Lifehacker Australia http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/06/ask-lh-am-i-missing-out-by-sticking-with-open-source-and-not-buying-microsoft-office/ The Fall Of OpenOffice And Rise Of LibreOffice on Muktware http://www.muktware.com/hacksheet/1399 Bruce Byfield article on Linux Magazine linked by Muktware: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/The-Decline-and-Fall-of-OpenOffice.org This is indeed really good. Now, if IBM really throws in the code from Lotus Symphony, we'll have to be prepared, as some journalists might change their stance... Although probably not :-) Best, Charles. -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- 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 -- 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] Fwd: Google Alert - libreoffice
Hi :) I thought the GPL, LGPL MPL were all much more permissive than the Apache licenses? I thought the whole point of OpenSource was that it is contra-intuitive. By insisting on intellectual freedoms, ideas are able to build on each other more easily. Regards from Tom :) From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Tue, 14 June, 2011 8:21:17 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Fwd: Google Alert - libreoffice Italo, 2011/6/13 Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com It looks like media are on our side. Ask LH: Am I Missing Out By Sticking With Open Source And Not Buying Microsoft ... on Lifehacker Australia http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/06/ask-lh-am-i-missing-out-by-sticking-with-open-source-and-not-buying-microsoft-office/ / The Fall Of OpenOffice And Rise Of LibreOffice on Muktware http://www.muktware.com/hacksheet/1399 Bruce Byfield article on Linux Magazine linked by Muktware: http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/The-Decline-and-Fall-of-OpenOffice.org g This is indeed really good. Now, if IBM really throws in the code from Lotus Symphony, we'll have to be prepared, as some journalists might change their stance... Although probably not :-) Best, Charles. -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- 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 -- 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 -- 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] proposed bylaws changes
Hi :) I think it is better to do the minimum that is required to make it legal and for the rest write in things like Mid-term replacements are to be covered by internal TDF policy which is to be reviewed regularly. In some cases it makes sense to name the specific document that will cover that particular policy but even that can make things unnecessarily restrictive in the future. Please avoid setting things in stone where it's not required by law. Regards from Tom :) From: Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Tue, 14 June, 2011 8:01:36 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes Hi Toki, toki wrote on 2011-06-10 19.16: When I was reading German law on non-profits, my impression was the By-Laws had to specify how members of the board of directors, and any advisory board were selected, and mid-term replacements done. I don't see anything in the by-laws that specifies how mid-term replacements are done. Is that not legally required? we have some rules on that, like Each member of the BoD must appoint one Community Member as deputy who can replace her/him in case of need, and who has the same rights during her/his period of absence or unavailability. or The Chairperson can be discharged and replaced by the BoD at any time. However, it indeed might be needed that we incorporate some more details into the binding statutes we are currently preparing. I have details on this soon. Thanks for pointing this out! 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 -- 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] proposed bylaws changes
Hi :) I thought everyone quickly checked that sort of thing anyway? I do. I thought David was making a joke out of the need for people to be a little more aware of one need for checking such rules. A serious point put forwards as a joke. Regards from Tom :) From: Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Tue, 14 June, 2011 7:56:24 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes Hi, Michael Meeks wrote on 2011-06-13 17.19: Counting votes we had: Florian, Charles, Andre, Olivier, Italo and Sophie voting in favour; so I've made all of the edits in the wiki. thanks a lot, Michael! I will ask the German community to translate the changes back. :) Thanks to everyone who contributed! (Oh, and David, I never thought you would do the bank account thing, don't worry ;) 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 -- 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] Fwd: Google Alert - libreoffice
On 6/14/11 9:21 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: This is indeed really good. Now, if IBM really throws in the code from Lotus Symphony, we'll have to be prepared, as some journalists might change their stance... Although probably not :-) It would be nice to know what it might mean in practical terms... Throwing in the code might imply a huge dump of files which have little or no meaning at all (see what happened with OOo files from Oracle). In any case, we should be prepared to react, but I don't think that IBM will throw anything before all OOo code is there. -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- 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
[steering-discuss] Membership Committee wiki page updated
Hi, I just updated the infos at the MC wiki page (improve the generic agenda, so that it is showing, what we discuss; link to the minutes page; add mailing list name for how to contact the MC). And in addition to that: I feel sorry to say, that yesterday's meeting had to be adjourned. I hope, we find a new timeslot within the next days, as some people are really wayiting for their application to be processed. regards, André -- 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] [Ping Florian] nntp gmane posts to user list still not getting to the list
Hi Gary, NoOp wrote on 2011-06-14 03.00: Any idea when the issue with posting to the user list (gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.user) ala your change from @libreoffice.org to @global.libreoffice.org will be fixed? On that list you are still missing contributions from gmane user/contributors. I would have expected that the change would have tested*before* the address change. I informed them days before we changed the address, they replied I should give them a ping *after* things have been changed. So I dod, minutes after the change was effective. We need to wait until they've incorporated the changes. 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 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means there is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm missing something here? LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? -Keith -- 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 -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means there is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm missing something here? It is true that the only license that matters is the least restrictive one, but people usually add licenses and so I was following that method. If you decide to throw the others away as pointless if Apache is chosen for a change, that would be an optimization. -Keith -- 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] Triple licensing?
Am 14.06.2011 11:34, schrieb Keith Curtis: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means there is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm missing something here? It is true that the only license that matters is the least restrictive one, Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible to the least restrictive license you offer. but people usually add licenses and so I was following that method. If you decide to throw the others away as pointless if Apache is chosen for a change, that would be an optimization. -Keith -- 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] Enhancement Request: Comment Ranges
Christoph Noack wrote: Mmh, seems that might be me :-) I added this and several other EasyHacks related to OOoNotes2 - our activities related to comments at OpenOffice.org. Search in bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedshort_desc=OOoNotes2bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDshort_desc_type=allwordssubstr Wonderful, thanks a lot! The cumbersome side of life: the whiteboard can only be added after the bug has been initially committed Seems to be a shortcoming of bugzilla - dunno if that's configurable. I think it should be MAILMERGE (with R), or? Fixed, thanks for noting. Cheers, -- Thorsten -- 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable. 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 June 2011 11:38, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible to the least restrictive license you offer. Okay, good point. Anyway, I'm just thinking of a way for Apache people to contribute to now. It seems there is excitement over there, but they don't have something that builds, etc. It seems like perhaps half will be blocked for some time. You could let some people work here and create a tree with a queue of changes made by Apache contributors that Apache could adopt when they are ready. That could be a useful gift and a way for everyone to work now. I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and writing it in Javascript. Seems to me that without a web based version both LibreO and OOo could become irrelevant anyway. Since LibO is already solidly in the desktop groove it makes much more efficient use of resources for Apache OOo to go to the web and also fits the Apache culture better. Files would be interchangeable between desktop and web, 100% through odf. OK, it's a big ask but this is probably the only opportunity that will arise for such a big shift in strategy. This strategy would mean anyone needing OOo now has LibO for continuity while the web version is being created so if it takes a couple of years it is not a disaster. Better to spend time on long term sustainability than patching up and sorting out code that really duplicates what is already available at LibO. Ok IBM symphony might be an issue in that scenario but the project is not there simply to support that product and I see wider and higher priorities. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- 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: [steering-discuss] Fwd: Google Alert - libreoffice
From: Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com To: steering-disc...@documentfoundation.org Sent: Tue, 14 June, 2011 13:15:05 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Fwd: Google Alert - libreoffice On 6/14/11 9:21 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: This is indeed really good. Now, if IBM really throws in the code from Lotus Symphony, we'll have to be prepared, as some journalists might change their stance... Although probably not :-) It would be nice to know what it might mean in practical terms... Throwing in the code might imply a huge dump of files which have little or no meaning at all (see what happened with OOo files from Oracle). In any case, we should be prepared to react, but I don't think that IBM will throw anything before all OOo code is there. Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli Hi :) 1 thing it definitely would mean is a lot more articles about us, or at least discussing LibreOffice and TDF. Do people here add comments to the bottom of these articles to help get the articles bumped up within whichever place publishes the article? It's an excellent way of correcting the inevitable inaccuracies? I try to take care not to be excessive but i'm sure a couple wouldn't hurt. Regards from Tom :) -- 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] Triple licensing?
Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 19:04, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and writing it in Javascript. Seems to me that without a web based version both LibreO and OOo could become irrelevant anyway. Since LibO is already solidly in the desktop groove it makes much more efficient use of resources for Apache OOo to go to the web and also fits the Apache culture better. Files would be interchangeable between desktop and web, 100% through odf. OK, it's a big ask but this is probably the only opportunity that will arise for such a big shift in strategy. This strategy would mean anyone needing OOo now has LibO for continuity while the web version is being created so if it takes a couple of years it is not a disaster. Better to spend time on long term sustainability than patching up and sorting out code that really duplicates what is already available at LibO. Ok IBM symphony might be an issue in that scenario but the project is not there simply to support that product and I see wider and higher priorities. If I'm not mistaken, the SC sees LibreOffice as remaining a firmly desktop-based suite, although they are thinking about a complementary Web-based component of some kind. I must admit that I'd like the software to remain on my computer without me hanging from strings rooted somewhere on the Web or in a cloud (not even a local one). -- David Nelson -- 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] Triple licensing?
Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 20:49, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and writing it in Javascript. It's already been done: http://www.webodf.org/ Well that's only an ODF compatibility library, not an entire office suite package... -- David Nelson -- 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 Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 15:05, David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz wrote: Hi Jim, BRM, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 00:43, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: There was, and still is, the perception that TDF is an official, fully- setup, self-controlled and self-existing foundation (similar to what the ASF is) Personally, I'm very happy with what's been achieved, and I'm optimistic for the project's future. Nobody is denying that or arguing otherwise. It is simply that newbie's have NO UNDERSTANDING of this. Florian had to explain all the details because they are not on the website. You describe how all the committers and people on the steering committee know these details. Well, of course. But what about all the people at Apache who are trying to learn about the work you guys have done here? Trying to learn the details of your Foundation, its organization, and its (current) backing association? Trying to learn who handles your donations, and how those proceeds are disbursed? BRM, Jim, and I are trying to say that that information is opaque. It takes direct involvement from Florian to achieve understanding. ... BTW, I'm very happy to welcome you here to chew the fat with us. If you really feel you have a different path forward that you want to follow, then I sincerely wish you well with the endeavour. But you We've chosen to take this path, yes... so thanks for the well wishes. have a lot of running to do in every area to catch up with us, guys! ;-) The competition will be interesting and probably not without Our goal is not to beat you. This is not a competition. That is not how Apache operates. Apache is a charity conceived and constructed to provide code to the world. We believe the best way to provide that code to *everybody* is to do so under a permissive license. If we can create a release of OOo, then we have performed our mission. Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition. But would not want to compete, regardless. We will produce the best OOo we can. If yours is better, then we believe that is just fine. If you are able to use some portion of our code to make your job easier, then even better. 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 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote: Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition. What does it say about collaborating with others? Anything? (serious question, I have no idea). 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable. Right, Simon. ... but (you saw that coming) would TDF/LO accept commits into the repository that were only licensed ALv2? Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2 license(*). Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it, then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF repository arises. Cheers, -g (*) strictly speaking, you do not offer code to the ASF under any specific license. your ICLA grants the ASF a right to release your code under a license of its choosing. -- 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:16, Greg Stein wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable. Right, Simon. ... but (you saw that coming) would TDF/LO accept commits into the repository that were only licensed ALv2? I'm pretty sure they would, yes, since it in no way inhibits outbound licensing under LGPLv3, but of course it's for others here to agree :-) Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2 license(*). The question would then appear to be whether Apache would accept contributions under just the Apache License, without an ICLA (since there are quite a few people here who object to any form of CLA). Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it, then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF repository arises. Presumably anyone can do that porting, not just the original contributor? 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote: Hi all; I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump, many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them. I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community. What do you think? As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable. Here is a thougt, what if i just create a patch for Apache and submit the same patch to LibO? How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code around, but what about generating code for both? 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 -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.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 Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote: Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition. What does it say about collaborating with others? Anything? (serious question, I have no idea). In essence, as a public trust, the ASF must operate in a way that does not favor one vendor or partner or collaborator over another. This is one reason why the ASF was, for example, unable to continue within the JCP EC, since our involvement in there provided more benefit to Oracle than to anyone else. -- 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 14 Jun 2011, at 16:54, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote: Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition. What does it say about collaborating with others? Anything? (serious question, I have no idea). In essence, as a public trust, the ASF must operate in a way that does not favor one vendor or partner or collaborator over another. This is one reason why the ASF was, for example, unable to continue within the JCP EC, since our involvement in there provided more benefit to Oracle than to anyone else. Would that preclude treating TDF as a collaborative peer? Being a non-profit itself FrODeV is presumably bound by the same limitation so collaborating with it would not violate that requirement for neutrality. 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] Magazine LibreOffice International.
this was discussed several months back in the marketing confcall which you are free to download. I am not sure which month was it, maybe is written on the minutes. drew and ben were involved in the discussion http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/ConfCalls On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Klaibson Ribeiro klaib...@gmail.comwrote: Hi. I was thinking if we organize an Magazine on LibreOffice, with members of all communities the world? 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 -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.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: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
Hi, Tom Davies wrote on 2011-06-14 10.44: I think it is better to do the minimum that is required to make it legal and for the rest write in things like Mid-term replacements are to be covered by internal TDF policy which is to be reviewed regularly. In some cases it makes sense to name the specific document that will cover that particular policy but even that can make things unnecessarily restrictive in the future. Please avoid setting things in stone where it's not required by law. indeed, that is the approach. The binding statutes will be rather lightweight, while we will have extended additional policies that can be changed easier. 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] Triple licensing?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 14/06/2011 15:31, Alexandro Colorado wrote: How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code around, but what about generating code for both? As a practical matter, the code would have to modified to work as expected with at least one, if not both projects. How much modification would be required, depends upon what the code does, and how deeply into other code it interacts. By way of example. You could dump the entire SQLite code into LibO, or Apache_OOo, with no modifications, if nothing called that code. However, for end users, that SQLite code would be useless, because there would be no way for them to create, edit, or retrieve data from an SQLite database. If code for the UI is included, so that end users can create, edit, or modify SQLite databases, then the code (SQLite + UI code dump) may have to be massaged to fit project guidelines, fix bugs, or other things. 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/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN95bgAAoJEERA7YuLpVrV/dsIAJs6sdm+5OdWVwZP91obP16Z HHSeThNjRrIMayGPQCA04HFlG2GwuSXl5MDISAa4zC8gwmJaACt0qDHCVNWNRZ5x yIxJiaz+ODqdLHUuw3aOpaTjMumgd86LoJRkMGx/mqZUTgd4XqR+287M02EoozPl C9WhU8k43UI5ppOcHDA46pcJTq9L6IGWkOqN+k8yORlyCN+Q9IMLCDA2DWbzzmKb D4ptT39IUWS0OySkeU2Y2HmBfqK4eRl1hX2seXwn6azF7PqPtbn7Ot9o3wtbu11n tPlTYjvSgb/no2kSZS3WaGcT5hwWsfjxroDT56QB/qEaPcW2Og/ZSvMoAzRwkYo= =Ietw -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] Enhancement Request: Comment Ranges
Cristoph wrote: What I'm currently unsure about - how to proceed. Although I'm not that convinced about voting, maybe it should be added to: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Vote_for_Enhancement Could you do that, please? Well, I tried to. I made an account, got my email confirmed, closed and reopened my browser -- but no matter what, I still can't edit that Wiki page. It looks like the page is protected so that only Administrators may make changes. -- Charles . PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: The information contained in this electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and confidential. The information is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. -- 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:39, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:31, Alexandro Colorado wrote: Here is a thougt, what if i just create a patch for Apache and submit the same patch to LibO? How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code around, but what about generating code for both? As far as I can tell, you could simply make your contribution in both places. Yup. If Keith has an ICLA on file, then he could get voted in as a committer and apply the patch. If not a committer, then sending the patch to the list is a Contribution, allowing the ASF to apply the patch and (re)license under the ALv2 when it makes a release. 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] Triple licensing?
On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Greg Stein wrote: For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not be able to take it.[1] Is the provenance that TDF secures at present sufficient for Apache's purposes? I'm not sure why people have an aversion to an ICLA. Probably out of scope here. One of those things that just has to be accepted, like Apache using Svn :-) 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 14:04, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Greg Stein wrote: For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not be able to take it.[1] Is the provenance that TDF secures at present sufficient for Apache's purposes? Doubtful. We can't really depend upon third-parties to do provenance the way that we'd like. The lack of any form of CLA would clearly be an issue for us. I'm not sure why people have an aversion to an ICLA. Probably out of scope here. One of those things that just has to be accepted, like Apache using Svn :-) Yup. Just noting my wonderment. 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 Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: You describe how all the committers and people on the steering committee know these details. Well, of course. But what about all the people at Apache who are trying to learn about the work you guys have done here? Trying to learn the details of your Foundation, its organization, and its (current) backing association? Trying to learn who handles your donations, and how those proceeds are disbursed? If you had come up with a plan of merging the foundations, all these details would have been worked through. I don't think it matters now given the fork. BRM, Jim, and I are trying to say that that information is opaque. It takes direct involvement from Florian to achieve understanding. You should have gotten your question answered before the proposal was submitted for a vote. Our goal is not to beat you. This is not a competition. That is not how Apache operates. Your goal is not to beat LO, but by choosing a fork you make cooperation difficult via license incompatibilities and social engineering. So if you aren't cooperating or competing then what word would you recommend? -Keith -- 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] Triple licensing?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: That is great news! Reading over the archives, I was surprised how some people who wished to contribute to both LOo and OOo were turned away (with a we don't want your kind here), and so seeing how LOo would now be open to itself accepting patches and code under AL is a welcome step forward! The frustration is because of the cost of forks. Some people argue that forks are okay because they've happened before, but that is like advocating for murder because it has happened before. This fork will waste lots of community resources and it already has. That can cause people to get upset. Here is my case study on the Ubuntu / Debian fork: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558 I have decided to make another case study for a future version of my book now that the podling was accepted. These are my notes so far: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567 Anyway, I suspect that much of the expertise in the incubation project would be blocked, and the codebases are similar now, so anyone who is frustrated that they can't contribute unless they want to work on infrastructure could come over here while they wait. This idea is a way to decrease the inefficiency of the current situation and help improve relations so I hope Apache consider it. I believe LibreOffice is not turning down contributors currently. Regards, -Keith -- 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 Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 17:04, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: You describe how all the committers and people on the steering committee know these details. Well, of course. But what about all the people at Apache who are trying to learn about the work you guys have done here? Trying to learn the details of your Foundation, its organization, and its (current) backing association? Trying to learn who handles your donations, and how those proceeds are disbursed? If you had come up with a plan of merging the foundations, all these details would have been worked through. I don't think it matters now given the fork. BRM, Jim, and I are trying to say that that information is opaque. It takes direct involvement from Florian to achieve understanding. You should have gotten your question answered before the proposal was submitted for a vote. We got our answer (before the vote) because Florian explained it. Our point is that other people visiting the site will not have Florian's attention. This has nothing to do with Apache, except by way of example and that Florian was engaged. Others will not be so lucky. I don't think the questions that I posed had anything to do with merging, but simply the kinds of curiosity that TDF supporters may have (or those who may be interested in *becoming* supporters). In short: suggestions on website improvements, for an audience that we weren't describing to David very well. Our goal is not to beat you. This is not a competition. That is not how Apache operates. Your goal is not to beat LO, but by choosing a fork you make cooperation difficult via license incompatibilities and social engineering. So if you aren't cooperating or competing then what word would you recommend? We want to cooperate. It is quite possible, and there have been several suggestions on ways to do that. If cooperation doesn't happen, then you're simply talking co-existence. Competition requires intent, I believe. But we can choose to disagree on that, I suppose. 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 Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: We got our answer (before the vote) because Florian explained it. Our point is that other people visiting the site will not have Florian's attention. This has nothing to do with Apache, except by way of example and that Florian was engaged. Others will not be so lucky. It isn't very frequently that people with the OpenOffice trademark come along. I don't think the questions that I posed had anything to do with merging, but simply the kinds of curiosity that TDF supporters may have (or those who may be interested in *becoming* supporters). They are irrelevant to you now that you aren't merging, and they would only have been relevant to you if you had merged, and they aren't relevant to typical people in the community so you can imagine why it is low priority. Our goal is not to beat you. This is not a competition. That is not how Apache operates. Your goal is not to beat LO, but by choosing a fork you make cooperation difficult via license incompatibilities and social engineering. So if you aren't cooperating or competing then what word would you recommend? We want to cooperate. Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less important than your consequences. -Keith -- 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 Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 17:52, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: ... I don't think the questions that I posed had anything to do with merging, but simply the kinds of curiosity that TDF supporters may have (or those who may be interested in *becoming* supporters). They are irrelevant to you now that you aren't merging, and they would only have been relevant to you if you had merged, and they aren't relevant to typical people in the community so you can imagine why it is low priority. Agreed. ... Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less important than your consequences. Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. 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
Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less important than your consequences. Hello Keith, As long as you are hung up on forks, you might want to get your facts right. Sun created the official OOo distribution when they open sourced StarOffice. Sun maintained control of the OpenOffice.org name, and made it clear from the beginning that any contributions to the official OOo distribution would only be accepted if they were accompanied by a copyright assignment. That system chugged along for many years, with varying levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. I agree with you that fork has been created. The seeds of that fork were germinated in the Go-Oo project, which created patches and enhancements that were not contributed back to the official OOo distribution. That became a full fork when the LibreOffice project was started by importing all of the OOo source code into a new repository. It was therefore TdF that created a fork, by creating a new version of the source code and making changes that they did not contribute back to the official distribution. I make that statement completely without making a value judgment whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. But if you are going to talk about the history of the project and start saying all forks are bad, you should at least get your facts straight about who actually created the fork. Also, if you are going to talk about a split in the community, you should mention that TdF and LibreOffice were created in secret, without any public discussions or community input. I say that again completely without making a value judgment whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, but again, when you recount the history, you should do so honestly. Best Regards, Allen -- 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 Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: than your consequences. Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less important Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. From my side I would say it isn't that you guys don't have good energies and ideas. It is that you announced the wrong plan, and then didn't fix it after getting feedback. -Keith -- 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 Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.orgwrote: Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less important than your consequences. Hello Keith, As long as you are hung up on forks, you might want to get your facts right. Sun created the official OOo distribution when they open sourced StarOffice. Sun maintained control of the OpenOffice.org name, and made it clear from the beginning that any contributions to the official OOo distribution would only be accepted if they were accompanied by a copyright assignment. That system chugged along for many years, with varying levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. I agree with you that fork has been created. The seeds of that fork were germinated in the Go-Oo project, which created patches and enhancements that were not contributed back to the official OOo distribution. That became a full fork when the LibreOffice project was started by importing all of the OOo source code into a new repository. It was therefore TdF that created a fork, by creating a new version of the source code and making changes that they did not contribute back to the official distribution. I make that statement completely without making a value judgment whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. But if you are going to talk about the history of the project and start saying all forks are bad, you should at least get your facts straight about who actually created the fork. Also, if you are going to talk about a split in the community, you should mention that TdF and LibreOffice were created in secret, without any public discussions or community input. I say that again completely without making a value judgment whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, but again, when you recount the history, you should do so honestly. I have followed somewhat the history of this codebase for the past 5 years, but thank you for explaining it. Yes, TDF might have been done in secret initially, but everything starts out as an idea in someone's head and therefore a secret. Today, they are very open. It isn't that I am hung up on forks. I spent years writing code in line layout and text editing and know that is but a tiny piece of this codebase. Thousands of people could get lost in this technology. This codebase is 10M lines which means this fork is 100x times more expensive than typical. (And no one inside LibreOffice was requesting one.) It is the size that inspires me to get involved. I also make more posts because I'm amazed that some leaders in our movement with the pedigree of IBM are actually hindrances. I see a story worthy of the New York Times. In fact, I have a connection ;-) I also want this technology to get better and I imagine what would happen if LibreOffice got a bunch of new contributors as of yesterday. This was an alternative plan. -Keith -- 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: [Ping Florian] nntp gmane posts to user list still not getting to the list
On 06/13/2011 11:29 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi Gary, NoOp wrote on 2011-06-14 03.00: Any idea when the issue with posting to the user list (gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.user) ala your change from @libreoffice.org to @global.libreoffice.org will be fixed? On that list you are still missing contributions from gmane user/contributors. I would have expected that the change would have tested*before* the address change. I informed them days before we changed the address, they replied I should give them a ping *after* things have been changed. So I dod, minutes after the change was effective. We need to wait until they've incorporated the changes. Florian What other lists are also affected? -- 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
