Re: [VOTE] Recommend to the Board to establish the Apache OpenOffice Project
[ x ] +1, recommend the resolution to the Board That's a +1 (non-binding) Andrew On 10/10/2012 12:00 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Seeing no objections to my last message, and keeping into account that this list had been regularly informed about the steps Apache OpenOffice was taking towards graduation, I'm hereby asking the IPMC to recommend the following resolution to the Board. Aim of the resolution is to establish the Apache OpenOffice Project as a Top Level Project. Please cast your vote: [ ] +1, recommend the resolution to the Board [ ] +0, abstain/don't care [ ] -1, do not recommend the resolution to the Board, because... This vote will be open for 72 hours from now; only votes from the Incubator PMC are binding. Resolution text: --- WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the OpenOffice personal productivity applications, for distribution at no charge to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the Apache OpenOffice Project, be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache OpenOffice Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of software related to the OpenOffice personal productivity applications; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, OpenOffice be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache OpenOffice Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache OpenOffice Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache OpenOffice Project: * Andre Fischer (af) * Andrea Pescetti (pescetti) * Andrew Rist (arist) * Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch) * Armin Le Grand (alg) * Dave Fisher (wave) * Donald Harbison (dpharbison) * Drew Jensen (atjensen) * Ian Lynch (ingotian) * Jürgen Schmidt (jsc) * Kay Schenk (kschenk) * Kazunari Hirano (khirano) * Louis Suarez-Potts (louis) * Marcus Lange (marcus) * Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw) * Pedro Giffuni (pfg) * Peter Junge (pj) * Raphael Bircher (rbircher) * Regina Henschel (regina) * RGB.ES (rgb-es) * Roberto Galoppini (galoppini) * Yang Shih-Ching (imacat) * Yong Lin Ma (mayongl) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Andrea Pescetti be appointed to the office of Vice President, OpenOffice, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache OpenOffice Project be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the OpenOffice Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache OpenOffice Project be and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache OpenOffice.org podling; and be it further RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache Incubator OpenOffice.org podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator Project are hereafter discharged. --- Best regards, Andrea Pescetti - Apache OpenOffice PPMC. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
On 8/24/2012 11:19 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Really, all this fuss over the LABELLING of a file being distributed does not add value to either the org, the podling, or the users of the software. Nowhere is it written that you CANNOT DISTRIBUTE BINARIES, however it has always been clear that they are provided for the convenience of our users, not as part of an official release. That however does not mean that things like release announcements cannot refer users to those binaries, it simply means those announcements need to reference the sources as the thing that was formally voted on and approved by the ASF. Thus... Binaries created /from /the Official Release? From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: Returning to this topic after an intermission... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: ...As one of the active developers I would have a serious problem if we as project couldn't provide binary releases for our users. And I thought the ASF is a serious enough institution that can ensure to deliver binaries of these very popular end user oriented software and can of course protect the very valuable brand OpenOffice that the ASF now owns as well... As has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, at the moment ASF releases consist of source code, not binaries. My impression from this discussion is that many podling contributors are dismayed by this policy, and that there is an element within the PPMC which remains convinced that it is actually up to individual PMCs within the ASF to set policy as to whether binaries are official or not. If there actually is an ASF-wide Policy concerning binaries then I would expect that: 1) It would come from the ASF Board, or from a Legal Affairs, not as individual opinions on the IPMC list 2) It would be documented someplace, as other important ASF policies are documented And 2a) Actually state the constraints of the policy, i.e., what is allowed or disallowed by the policy. Merely inventing a label like convenience or unofficial gives absolutely zero direction to PMC's. It is just a label. Consider what the IPMC's Release Guide gives with regards to the source artifact. It is labeled canonical, but that level is backed up with requirements, e.g., that every release must include it, that it must be signed, etc. Similarly, podling releases are not merely labeled podling releases, but policy defines requirements, e.g., a disclaimer, a required IPMC vote, etc. I hope I am not being too pedantic here. But I would like to have a policy defined here so any PMC can determine whether they are in compliance. But so far I just hear strongly held opinions that amount to applying labels, but not mandating or forbidden any actions with regards to artifacts that bear these labels. Consider: If some IPMC members declared loudly that It is ASF policy that binary artifacts are 'Umbabuga', what exactly would you expect a Podling to do, given that Umbabuga is an undefined term with no policy mandated or forbidden actions? There is a seductive appeal to reaching consensus on a label. But it avoids the hard part of policy development, the useful part: reaching consensus on constraints to actions. The AOO PPMC was asked to take this discussion along with digital signature issue to legal-discuss to get advice. Whether or not this becomes guidance for AOO or official foundation wide policy is ultimately up to the Board and the Membership. Regards, Dave 3) That the policies is applied not only to AOO, but to other podlings and to TLP's as well. Until that happens, I hear only opinions. But opinions, even widely held opinions, even Roy opinions, are not the same as policy. -Rob OTOH I don't think anybody said the ASF will never allow projects to distribute binaries - but people who want to do that need to get together (*) and come up with a proposal that's compatible with the ASF's goals and constraints, so that a clear policy can be set. I'm concerned that such an effort may not be completed, and that once the podling graduates, AOO binaries will once again be advertised as official, placing the project in conflict with ASF-wide policy. It may be that some within the newly formed PMC will speak out in favor of the ASF status quo, but as their position will likely be inexpedient and unpopular, it may be difficult to prevail. Of course I don't know how things will play out, but it seems to me that reactions from podling contributors have ranged from
Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
+1 (non-binding) Please cast your votes: [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
I'll quote my earlier answer [1] on that: Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit at a later stage of the project. (acknowledged - that was several hundred messages ago) On 6/8/2011 1:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: May I ask for a last clarification on the code covered by the Oracle grant? Some observers, like the Document Foundation [1] and Bradley Kuhn [2], seem to imply that the grant will also turn some proprietary software (components exclusive to StarOffice - Oracle Open Office perhaps? Or Oracle Cloud Office?) into free software: is this the case or, as it seems from the provided file list, all the code covered by the grant is already available as free (LGPL3) software? [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
to a foundation independent of Oracle: Team OpenOffice.org e.V. searching for a more complete answer Oracle Email Signature Logo Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect Oracle Corporate Architecture Group Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847 On 6/8/2011 4:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: I started looking around at the OOo website. I'm not sure if now is the time to bring this up, but at http://contributing.openoffice.org/donate.html there is a solicitation for funds via three processes. Here's what the page says: Your donation will go directly towards helping this project. Some of the ways in which your funds might be used include: • Hiring independent developers to work with OpenOffice.org. • Paying for participation at trade shows and conferences. • Paying for organization and staff at annual OpenOffice.org Conference, OOoCon. • Marketing banners, collateral, CDs and brochures. Please discuss the tax benefits of donating with your accountant. You can make a donation to our primary treasury, Team OpenOffice.org, e.V. via PayPal or credit card or use bank transfer. Or, if you prefer to donate US dolars (USD) via credit card, cheque or money order, you can use use Software In the Public Interest, Inc. (SPI), and simply identify the recipient project, OpenOffice.org, where indicataed in the instructions SPI provides: SPI Donations for OpenOffice.org . (SPI does not accept PayPal or wire transfers.) Clearly there ought to be changes to the page and process when/if the podling happens. This is probably at the ASF Board level... certainly the hiring developers part doesn't fit... btw, where do those funds go now?? I'm guessing some sort of escrow account held by Oracle? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. references: [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bb9a.7040...@oracle.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo repositories. A. On 6/7/2011 10:14 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the work-in-progress CWS[1] please? Thanks S. [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Ristandrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. references: [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bb9a.7040...@oracle.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/5/2011 5:38 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: I still think that's open for discussion. To my eyes it still makes a lot of sense to have Apache host the parts IBM (and maybe others, although their existence is exaggerated) need for their proprietary products, and then have TDF maintain a consumer end-user deliverable downstream as well. Wouldn't it make the most sense for Apache to produce a full ALv2 Office Suite, with the result available to interested users across all relevant platforms? The code would then be available for all ALv2 compatible uses, including being integrated into downstream forks such as LibreOffice. The presence of the code at Apache should solve some of the issues (procedural and philosophical) developers have had pushing their code upstream. It would seem to be in the interest of forks to push as many changes as possible upstream, to minimize the difficluties when merging in the upstream code. [1] This makes the most sense to me in terms of maximizing the value of the project at ASF, while at the same time creating a cooperative working relationship with multiple forms of downstream constituencies, including LO/TDF, NeoOffice, RedOffice, and Symphony, among others. references: [1] http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-06-03-libreoffice-3-4-0.html search for 'Heroic merging' http://people.gnome.org/%7Emichael/blog/2011-06-03-libreoffice-3-4-0.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OO.o downloads on Day One (was: opportunity to reunite the related communities ...)
On 6/3/2011 2:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:29, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: ... text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that openoffice.org resolve to a working and current site without interruption ... I don't think there is any immediate plan to take down openoffice.org or any of its subareas on Day One. It should continue to function normally. I honestly don't know what Oracle has said about this. Oracle has committed to maintaining the infrastructure for openoffice.org during the transition. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
But this raises another question - does Oracle donate the code only or will ASF also get the contents of the website, wiki, translation database (wich has some more information than what you see in the code), ooo-specific tooling (OOo used to have some web portals to support development, qa, release and documentation processes) etc. It is Oracle's intent to find a good home for all of the content of the OOo web site. Some of the content may move to Apache, such as documentation. Other content, such as mailing lists, may be publicly archived. The transferring of material to Apache will depend on relevance and licensing. The goal here is to both save the history, and to get as much as possible of the current info across into the new project home and licensed under ALv2. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo extensions? Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, Professional Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc. Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit at a later stage of the project. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
