Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
Hi, Sam Ruby wrote (10-06-11 18:02) Please cast your votes: a. - : because of the difficulties ahead, as mentioned on this list, for the OpenOffice.org product in the ASF (that may not be relevant for the AFS, but IMO are for OpenOffice.org), and since TDF for me is a more logical choice; b. + : because the many people from the OpenOffice.org project that I know and want to give the Apache OpenOffice.org a chance, which I think is fair too. Round (b-a) = +0 (non binding) Kind regards, Cor [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation This vote will close 72 hours from now. -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Request: Can proposed committers introduce themselves?
Richard S. Hall wrote (08-06-11 11:03) On 06/08/2011 04:16 AM, Christian Lippka wrote: Moin Moin [1], my name is Christian Lippka and I work on the donnated code base since 1998 [..] I just wanted to say that this is one of the best messages I've read throughout this entire ordeal. Thanks. Yip - thanks Christian :-) -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Noel J. Bergman wrote (07-06-11 02:03) Michael Meeks: I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run. You: I agree; you draw the same inference that I do: he means that a non-copyleft license is the reason for (predicted eventual) failure. Is 'Not likely to be a good home' the same as 'failure' ? Sure not in this case. It just means that the Apache solution does not cater for an important part of the community. That attitude is most likely why (IMO) the obvious candidate wasn't used when Oracle decided to transfer OpenOffice. Even more speculations, LOL And OT (interesting how this whole subject drives me/you/others this route). Licensing matters. IBM and others prefer an Open Source license, which allows a level playing field, rather than the inequity of GPL+proprietary, but they are not interested sharing everything. A know discussion indeed. Cheers, -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51) Conclusion: I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run. Supporting statements: [...] Supporting explanation ;-) http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Cor Nouws wrote (07-06-11 00:31) Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51) Conclusion: I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run. Supporting statements: [...] Supporting explanation ;-) http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser Or better this link http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de97e04.20...@nouenoff.nl%3E (apologies) -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Hi Sam, Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 16:00) On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO. This question can be looked at from multiple perspectives. I will start by acknowledging your perspective as a valid perspective. I will close by asking that you acknowledge mine in a likewise manner. In order to cast the widest possible net, it is important to pick a license that seeks to permit the widespread use of the code, being inclusive of both Free and proprietary software products alike. In general yes. And the details of the licences providing that inclusiveness, as well as if the assumption really holds, of course depend on the specific situation. Choosing a start that you know will bring you in conflict with a fast maturing foundation, delivering a rewarded project, strongly backed and enjoying support from the larger part of the old non-Oracle OpenOffice.org community as well as a growing amount of free developers ... In this specific situation you take a big risk. Namely ... hmm, read the other mails for that. I fully understand that that is just one possible criteria for a license choice. While other choices may make sense depending on the specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation. Yes, just wrote about that. Before proceeding, can I get you to acknowledge that as a valid perspective? Well, it is above. But I'm not sure if further debate will bring us to a point where you acknowledge that trying to find a common ground first would have be useful - and that was my question a but further above. Regards, -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.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?
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (05-06-11 23:25) So, it does not logically follow that if a proposal at Apache is rejected that we go to TDF/LO. After all, why would you ? -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Decades of Life (was: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal)
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 06:31) On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:07, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: [Picking a random mail in this thread] I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal. I read Reliance on Salaried Developers ... Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major reason for establishing the project at Apache. Unless really relevant, I would suggest to leave that last sentence out. I guess no need to explain why ;-) Cor: I believe that you would need a better understanding of Apache, or that you *do* need to explain why that sentence should be omitted. Apologies. Was too obvious for me. I read the sentence as arguing that TDF would not be a long term stable solution. And since there still are some attempts to build bridges, offensive suggestions have no place. On the other side: I have not a single reason to suggest that the ASF is not long term stable. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Cor Nouws wrote (04-06-11 01:49) Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10) That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the press. It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press about that (at this stage). Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement about not talking to the press. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartza.kucka...@ping.de wrote: If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33) On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement about not talking to the press. Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's ideological stance will be a factor in breaking any cooperation. I did not say that. But it was said of the interview with Meeks, which we found out not to be true either. That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing the good and the potential of this effort. Whereas there appears a concerted effort by others to derail it and portray the ASF as the pawns of IBM/Oracle or as agents of anti-FOSS/anti-LOo actions. If that is the feeling you get, there is something wrong. I do not see any sense in criticizing the ASF, just because they have a different view. Seems you get hit by pieces flying around that belong in the IBM - TDF dispute ;-) Sorry about that, maybe a bit more precise wording (from me and others) here and there would help, but I'm not sure if it would fully prevent that happening. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39) On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO. I'm not an expert in this but is seems to me that since you can derive a copy left licensed product from an Apache licensed product but not the other way round, it is in fact logical to start with Apache if both are to be considered. No, those people will not join that project under Apache. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 19:42) I must have significantly misinterpreted the below: However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run, Meeks said. They are sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that attempting to negotiate over changing any core aspect of it (such as the non-copy-left stance) is unlikely to be fruitful work. So - only time will tell. Yes you did, Pls read my mail from 0:35 UTC last night in this thread. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Hi Jim, all, short intro Long time OpenOffice.org contributor in various areas. Mainly LibreOffice since Sept. 2010. One of the founders there. Now looking at a Thinderbird folder with more than 300 mails, of which I've only read a few up until now :-) Living in The Netherlands, so If I skip in an hour or so, it is because of the time zone ;-) /short intro Jim Jagielski wrote (03-06-11 22:14) Posts such as: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division as well as almost forcing the other side to take a defensive stance. It's a shame. I do not understand why that should be a shame. All I read is explanation of the situation, among which implicitly an important difference: the copy-left versus non copy-left. That is a personal style, choice that is one of the reasons d'être of LibreOffice. Indeed a line in the sand. But putting ones head in the sand, by not acknowledging it, would make little sense IMO. Kind regards, Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...
Hi Rob, all, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (02-06-11 21:34) If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO then I suspect this is with a very low level of engagement. I know several people that started with really tiny contributions for LibreOffice in the past months but just evolved to people contributing features, more and more clean ups, committing to the repository themselves and help with checking other patches. Also, people with specific knowledge of any of the many areas in the huge code base, can mean a lot by just using their skills for maybe few lines of code. I hardly new about this process when I was active in the old OpenOffice.org project. Now in the LibreOffice project I've seen that it is reality, and what the importance of that approach is. And most of those names are making very sporadic, but I'm sure very valuable, contributions. Indeed. Notably the top 20 contributors were making 90% of the commits and of those the majority are Novell employees. Which is not relevant - but of course that percentage is getting lower regularly with others joining LibreOffice. 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. It is different, as I wrote above. And I too think it is relevant. Although I read for example this: Ross Gardler wrote (03-06-11 15:25) The incubator does not expect a viable community on the way *in*, it only expects a viable community on the way *out*. We will take a vote on whether to accept this proposal into the incubator. That vote, for the majority of people, will not be about vague unanswerable questions such as will it graduate it will be about is there any *definite* reason to refuse entry to the incubator. The difference is relevant at least for managing expectations. When there are many contributors for LibreOffice that you may not expect to join an OpenOffice.org project in Apache. I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to happen. Regards, Cor -- Prima office software - niet duur, wél vrij ?! http://www.nieuwsteoffice.nl/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - 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 the Community?
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 19:57) Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to upgrade or modify their licensing. Read the '+' in the licence ;-) Cor (still reading my way through, and understanding in the mean time that at any moment constructive contribution is expected ;-) ) -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - 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 the Community?
Sam Ruby wrote (03-06-11 20:22) Unable is a strong word. I given that we are talking about historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be possible to identify and reach out to those who made these contributions. These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights. Ah yes, and part of them would not object, I guess. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - 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 the Community?
Hi Rob, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (03-06-11 17:59) Allen Pulsiferpulsi...@openoffice.org wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03 AM: It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document Foundation is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF. Without commenting on the merit of the idea, a practical difficulty is that [...] Maybe you did comment on the merit of it in another post ? If not, pls.. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
Nick Kew wrote (02-06-11 17:48) Hypothetically if this donation had happened before the OOO/ODF split, can I assume that you would you have regarded it as a solution to the underlying problems and never have split? Would have been a solution for part of the problems. Not all, as may be clear from some of the explanations given here. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23) On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10) That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the press. It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press about that (at this stage). Meeks is being interviewed about what's going on around libreOffice. I don't see any press where ASF people talking smack about TDF/LO. I don't see any smack in it. I read he is giving his opinion in a polite manner. (Have seen different quotes from him in the past ..). And also complimenting the ASF. However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run, Meeks said. OK, now I understand where your impression comes from. For me it is obvious that this statement is because there is strong involvement in LibreOffice from people that do not want to work with non-copyleft and Apache licence. So just another (though indeed rather implicit, explanation of a different view on things.) (So seeing Robs questionnaire: it won't be easy to get ground for many positive replies. But of course it is good to try. I even might step in with some suggestions, that however always tend to fail, since my mind does not take large corporate policies into consideration ;-) ) Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - 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
[Picking a random mail in this thread] I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal. I read Reliance on Salaried Developers ... Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major reason for establishing the project at Apache. Unless really relevant, I would suggest to leave that last sentence out. I guess no need to explain why ;-) Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:56) rather than talk bad about Still not get that 'bad' ;-) -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
