Re: OOo Monetary Donations
Hello everyone, 2011/6/9 Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Hi, Andy Brown wrote on 2011-06-09 01.42: It would be interesting to find out if all funds received for OOo were accounted for since the fork. The e.V changed names and collects donations for LibreOffice, http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/ . as a German approved, charitable/non-profit organization, we are bound to the subject of use for donations we receive. That means, if someone explicitly donates for OpenOffice.org or for LibreOffice, money will be used exclusively for this purpose. You could, e.g., also donate to a specific project we set-up (like developing XYZ component), then the donation would have to be used exclusively for that. The change of our name reflects we are supporting not only OOo or LibO, but all free office suites. So to summarize: - TeamOOo e.V: Association of the Hamburg engineers (primarily) --- OOo - FroDe.V, formerly OOoDe.V: users/community association in Germany channelling funds under two separate accounts for LibreOffice and OpenOffice, and also acting as the intermediary legal entity on behalf of TDF. I hope everything's a bit clearer. Best, Charles. 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)
level and on a distribution level 2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony). I hope we can move forward on this. Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
Hello Jim, Le Tue, 7 Jun 2011 07:50:42 -0400, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com a écrit : On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.13: Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away (what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure, esp to an entity which was still in the process (though close!) of finalizing its foundational status... your interpretation of #3 is wrong. It reads available for transfer, and emphasizes that by into The Document Foundation's infrastructure. There is not a single word about hardware wanted. Thx for the clarification... BTW, it also mentions integration with Oracle ERP and CRM stacks Did you really want (and expect) direct access to such incredibly sensitive and important parts of Oracle's business structure? How does that help the community? It seems much more something a competing business would want. Actually it was felt that it's something Oracle would have enjoyed, as it simply eases major scale migrations to LibreOffice and reassures, on the other hand, customers who are studying acquiring Oracle solutions. Best, Charles. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
Le Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:59:21 +0100, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com a écrit : I just heard back from the Open World Forum Programme Committee (Paris, October) and they would be pleased to provide us with space for a meeting. S. Kiss the cook! (/points at himself)... -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE : Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
As the convener of the LibreOffice conference, I'd welcome such a meeting. We can have it in the course of the ODF master class. Best, Charles. Le 6 juin 2011, 7:25 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net a écrit : On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: My apologies if this propo... I'm interested. The event would need a neutral Chair/Organiser and a suitably egalitarian agenda, naturally. Is ... Sounds like a rat-hole. I'd suggest that each chair a meeting at their respective venue. Or vice versa. S. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: gener...
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hello Robert, 2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi Robert, Hi Florian (Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list) Did I send you a reply off-list? Damned phone... I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to join in here: Just like the rest of us :-) Noisy and open - everyone with an opinion is welcome :-) Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14: The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either copyright or code today. Apache is. Why? AIUI [1] the TDF is not a legal entity today and is still in the process of building it's legal, organisational and process infrastructure. I accept it has strong legal backing but today no (related) US non-profit corporation exists which could accept the donation. 2 comments here: 1) actually TDF has an existing legal entity at its core, and it's a german association. 2) why a US non profit? The Apache Software Foundation provides a suitable legal no-profit organisation and in place today a suitable process to accept large donations of code from major organisations safely through the Incubator. It has considerable experience of opening close source projects and in working with rich downstream ecologies. Can you elaborate? IMHO LibreOffice community finds itself in a similar position to the Apache group in the mid-90s. Great community. Fantastic momentum. Cool product. But establishing code provenance and the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) took a(n unexpectedly) large amount of time and energy. Establishing suitable licenses and agreements took time and energy over several iterations. Establishing a sound Incubation process took time and energy over many iterations. It took time for us to learn and evolve secure processes which don't completely suck. The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an alternative path might achieve their aims faster... We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they don't even know? Best, Charles. Robert [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTi=ay5pm-xvcvbxxjwj0eqqqpww...@mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
Hello Jochen, 2011/6/4 Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went to a fair bit of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on Rob's blog and elsewhere. And rightfully so, if your understanding is right. (My opinion.) But let me summarize what you wrote otherwise into a single sentence: There are pieces of LO, which are available under a dual license, but in general one should assume that both OO and LO are available under the terms of LGPLv3 only. Almost :) . OOo is available under LGPL v3. Any code for and from LibreOffice *only* is LGPL v3 + (note the +), MPL and GPL v3. Best, Charles. Jochen -- Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hello Jim, 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they don't even know? How can one respond to the question (and the original one that predicated this one) without someone misinterpreting it as confrontational, self-serving or condescending? One issue that was, from all I have been told and heard, is that having OOo at some place with a known track record, with real FOSS street cred and the ability to work with other FOSS organizations as well as commercial entities was important. That it wasn't just getting rid of OOo but instead placing it someplace where it had the best chance to growth, thrive and prosper. I've also been told that Oracle and TDF did discuss moving OOo there, but that in addition to some requirements that were unacceptable, that TDF was still a foundation-in-creation. Reading over the blogs, it is even admitted that the complexity and time involved in creating one was underestimated. The concern was putting the life and longevity of OOo into, basically, an unknown quantity. I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be kept, well, off the record. But then if everybody else comes up with his own version it might be necessary for TDF to bring its own version to the table. With that in mind, the ASF (or Eclipse) is much different. We've been a foundation since 1999, and an active force since 1994. We have a legal structure, a non-profit 501(c)3 status, existing infrastructure, a healthy fundraising effort, a methodology and governance model that is copied and well respected, and a proven track record of building exceptional FOSS projects and communities. There are *obvious* things that, with OOo in mind, the ASF lacks that TDF has in spades: the build and distribution system is the one which has been mentioned most of all. There are things that the TDF lacks that the ASF has in spades. I don't see why we can't work together to use each other to fill in the holes that the other lacks. I think I have expressed myself -and so did TDF- on our interest to work with ASF. We are discussing terms, and also how the general discussion is framed. But this being said I also do feel we're making progress, aren't we? P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the OOo space, it is not just the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*. I would rephrase this in a different way. This is Free Sofware, TDF's mission is to replace the OOo space with the LibreOffice space, and yes there are other players, but I feel that's somewhat obvious. :) Best, Charles.; - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...
Hello Jim, 2011/6/2 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being antagonistic. If truly 100% of the LibreOffice members prefer TDF to Apache, then you have nothing to worry about, right? If some prefer Apache, then you have worries, if you choose to worry about such things, but I don't take it as a moral fault in Apache or in the authors of this proposal that we are offering an open source development choice that some developers might prefer over TDF. I don't see this as 2 competing projects... well, maybe right now it is, but what it is now doesn't mean that is how it should be, or will turn out to be. One simple example: Imagine the Apache project as the core guts of OOo, the framework. With TDF working on parts that extend and enhance OOo, in a modular fashion, for a particular set of end-users... or something like that. Or something different from that. What I'm trying to say is simple 1-1 duplication is stupid, at least in my mind. I don't see that as our only option; in fact, I see that as a really short-sighted one. We can all certainly do much better than that. It is an honor to be on an ASF list, first of all, and I'd like to thank everyone for joining this discussion. To answer Jim's email, I think that while OOo and LibreOffice don't have to be competitors, I would not necessarily want to decide why we should split development efforts. I 'm sure the Apache Foundation has experience in dealing with Free and Open Source Software projects but I don't think it make sense to to split communities and give a specific role to each of them. I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer and Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has never contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall. I'm a bit surprised by this as TDF has now over 200 developers, paid and unpaid and I was under the impression that this number was not deemed to be enough by IBM. Best, Charles-H. Schulz. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...
Hello Eric, 2011/6/2 eric b eric.bach...@free.fr Hi, Le 2 juin 11 à 17:16, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer and Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has never contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall. I never heard of any line of code from yourself in OpenOffice.org either. Can you point us some links please ? I don't pretend to be a developer, never did. I'm a bit surprised by this as TDF has now over 200 developers, That's obviously not true : I myself follow LibreOffice development lists since the beginning, reading most of the changes and patches, and I don't see 200 developers, means people able to write some new feature of fix serious bugs in any OpenOffice.org derivative product. Of course you can add contributions from Oracle devs either, but that's a lie too, since all OpenOffice.org cws's were added, without Oracle devs being informed they contributed :-) Maybe you counted 200 people -say hackers- who contributed in various ways, simple patches or little removing ? The definition of developers should be kept simple: people who contribute code This article will give you some data on the 200 people : http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr/wordpress/?p=803 Charles.
Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...
Hello Rob, 2011/6/2 robert_w...@us.ibm.com charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM: I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer and Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has never contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall. I'm a bit surprised by this as TDF has now over 200 developers, paid and unpaid and I was under the impression that this number was not deemed to be enough by IBM. Charles, You should be looking at the wiki version of the proposal, which is updated as additional people sign up and add their name: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal If you are seeing only two names then it sounds like you are looking at the ODT version of the proposal that was initially posted and then pasted into the wiki. No, I was saying that on the list I was seeing only two names who were developers. But the list grew a bit in the same time. But since this is around the third time today that I've seen LibreOffice members question my credentials, I'd like to gently remind the LibreOffice guests on this list that my name being near the top of the proposed committer list is merely expressing a chronological fact. I was one of the first individuals to sign up. Nothing more. It does not mean that I've been picked for any special distinction or that have any special prerogatives in this project. But since you question it, I'll mention briefly my bona fides: No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will never done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of us have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm questioning is the ability to have two projects, OpenOffice and LibreOffice, with so much overlap and only a vaguely defined reason to have two distinct projects (the reason being, that some contributors -IBM- might prefer the Apache licensing). What I'm concerned is the fuzziness around the developers who would contribute to the Openoffice.org codebase. For someone who has repeatedly explained that the LibreOffice developers were not that many, I think that betting on a sustainable OpenOffice.org project here is a major leap of faith. I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think nobody wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate than pretending the elephant in the room (LibreOffice, the Document Foundation) does not exist or does not de facto embody the largest part of the OpenOffice community (yes, I know, there are a few exceptions). Best 1) Please note that I'm a Senior Technical Staff Member at IBM, not a Distinguished Engineer. I work for a living ;-) 2) I've been coding in C++ for 25 years, before it was a standard, and in Java since it first was called Java. 3) I've coded on Lotus SmartSuite years ago, but also worked on various IBM efforts to componetize these editors over the years, in projects called eSuite and DevPack. These editor components were done both in activeX as well as Java. 4) I chair the OASIS ODF Technical Committee, the group that owns the document format standard that OpenOffice (and LibreOffice) use as the default. In my role as chair, and through my outreach, I've helped us more than double the membership of that committee. I can handle differences of opinion. As chair I've had to manage not only the frequent squabbles between Novel and Sun over the years (of which our current debates seem to be an echo), but also participation by Google, Microsoft, Nokia, KDE, AbiWord as well as many valued independent participants. 5) I'm architect for the Simple Java API for ODF at the ODF Toolkit Union, Java code, leading the design of that project, which is under the Apache 2.0 license. 6) I've been an active member of OpenOffice.org Conferences for many years now (since Lyon in what? 2005? 2006?) giving untold numbers of presentations and helping organize ODF interop workshops. 7) Less visible publicly is the work I do within IBM on technical direction related to smart documents and next generation editor functionality, working with the Symphony and LotusLive Symphony team, talking to customers, especially public sector. So am I an active coder on OpenOffice.org? No. I never said I was. But I am looking forward to contribute to Apache OpenOffice. I'd like to think that I have a perspective and set of skills that would be valued in a project like this. I'd like to think that 20+ years experience in exactly this area counts, perhaps in some very small way, in the full generosity of your opinion, as real development resources. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...
Rob, 2011/6/2 robert_w...@us.ibm.com charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM: No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will never done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of us have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm questioning is the ability to have two projects, OpenOffice and LibreOffice, with so much overlap and only a vaguely defined reason to have two distinct projects (the reason being, that some contributors -IBM- might prefer the Apache licensing). What I'm concerned is the fuzziness around the developers who would contribute to the Openoffice.org codebase. For someone who has repeatedly explained that the LibreOffice developers were not that many, I think that betting on a sustainable OpenOffice.org project here is a major leap of faith. Hi Charles, Maybe this will make it a little more plausible. As you know IBM develops Lotus Symphony, which is essentially a fork of OpenOffice. IBM has experience in how many developers are required to code, test, translate, document, support, etc., a project of this size. We've been doing it for several years. It does not require 400 developers. It does not require 200 developers. It does not require 100 or even 50 developers. If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO then I suspect this is with a very low level of engagement. There is a diversity of profiles, obviously, and we can agree that this diversity is usually found in healthy communities. When I check the commit logs for LibreOffice and apply the Apache criteria for what defines an active participant (a commit within the last 6 months), I see only 54 names. And most of those names are making very sporadic, but I'm sure very valuable, contributions. Notably the top 20 contributors were making 90% of the commits and of those the majority are Novell employees. So we we may disagree on the metrics (but that's not really crucial for the sake of the argument); but I'm not saying that LibreOffice requires 200 or 400 developers. I'm only pointing out the difference of treatment between a project that exists and runs, and a project that has stopped to exist (and has no more developers until now). So it is clear that even with LO, a small number of core developers, even just 20, do almost all the core coding. This observation is consistent with what I know about the development of Symphony. I'm not surprised by these numbers. So I believe that a reasonable goal for Apache OpenOffice, for graduation from incubation, is to have a set of at least 20 active committers. That should be sufficient, as a bare minimum, to be the developer nucleus of a respectable project. Certainly. Now is it plausible to get to that number? I think so. But let's not set some bogus target of 400 developers or whatever. I'm not setting that target, again, I'm just pointing out the fuzziness around their existence. There is no intent to dump the code with no developers. But I don't think we want to crowd source the project either. I think we want a core group of dedicated committers who can facilitate the review and integration of patches from a larger number of less-engaged developers. That is the kind of distribution I think we'll want. But our target metric should be the around active committers. The halo of additional developers is important as well. But their effectiveness is entirely dependent on the ability of the core committers to review and integrate their work. So we need to grow the project from the inside out. That's my opinion, in any case. But LO is really no different. Its core is developers transplanted from the Novell Edition of OpenOffice. Surely, there is nothing that prevents other companies with OpenOffice forks from doing exactly the same thing. I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think nobody wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate than pretending the elephant in the room (LibreOffice, the Document Foundation) does not exist or does not de facto embody the largest part of the OpenOffice community (yes, I know, there are a few exceptions). Please, Charles, stop saying that anyone is saying that LibreOffice does not exist. You are here, on the Apache list, at the invitation of Apache. I'm happy to stipulate that you exist, I exist, OpenOffice.org exists, Apache exists and that TDF/LO exists. Well, would you be happy with the second part of the sentence you're alluding to? To repeat it, LibreOffice and the Document Foundation embody de facto most of the OpenOffice.org community, and even beyond. Best, Charles. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Jim, 2011/6/2 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:34 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Sense 2 is a but more subjective, since each person might have their own vision of what the ideal community would look like. Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going south in OOo, but before TDF was formed, Oracle had done what it just did: donate the code and the trademark to the ASF. If that had happened, would those of you behind TDF still have created it? This is, I think, an important question, and an honest answer would get to any real underlying issues, imo. That's a tough one, Jim :-) I can't speak for everyone else at TDF and everyone else in general on this. My honest guess is that TDF would not have had the momentum it has today. For a more complete answer I think we would need to ponder how the final status of the project inside Apache would have been/would be, how the project structure and goals, as well as development processes would have been defined, etc. In a nutshell, I think that in the absence of any alternative, OpenOffice inside Apache would have made people happy in the sense that it would have been twenty times better than what was happening with the old OpenOffice project. Yet many difficulties would have existed (copyleft, non-copyleft being one of the major issues). But what this highlights imho, is that yesterday's announcement comes out for many as something that does not make sense, at least chronologically speaking. In French we use an expression that goes a bit like a hairball that landed in the soup; I'm certainly not comparing ASF to a hairball nor soup :-) but you get the idea. Worse, perhaps, is the growing impression that something has gone wrong or didn't work the right way between the major proponent of an OpenOffice project inside the Apache foundation, IBM, and TDF. At least that's my feeling. I understand IBM has business and strategic requirements, my personal feeling (I'm not speaking on behalf of TDF on this one) is that we didn't have enough time/opportunity to understand each other more. And now, we are looking at a hairball that just landed in the soup. Let's see how we can deal with this in a constructive way. Best, Charles. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hello Noel, 2011/6/2 Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com Florian Effenberger wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: If there is a community split, that decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our all-inclusive environment. So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is our (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator project do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault. This looks like a rather one-sided view to me. Look on the positive side, and realize that this is a huge opportunity to reunite the community. That's how *I* choose to view it. That is how Jim, Jukka and Andreas also appear to view it. Charles Schulz also seems to concur that were OO.o's transfer to the ASF have happened right off the bat, we wouldn't be debating the point. I'm sure that we're not alone, despite the fact that we all might wish that this had happened long ago. You misunderstood me, I think: I'm saying that in the real world, LibreOffice has happened and that Openoffice being given to Apache is odd and not the best thing that could have happened. Charles says that he doesn't want to enter a debate on licensing. But licensing is an elephant in the room. Oracle's move with OO.o will fully open the project to all participants and use-cases, including those who might previously have had to enter into alternate, paid, licensing arrangements with the copyright holder. And it comes with arrangements that create issues. Best, Charles. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
