Re: OOo Monetary Donations
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. 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: OOo Monetary Donations
Hi, Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-06-09 10.28: - 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. exactly. Maybe two things to add (and Martin, feel free to correct me): TeamOOo: donations are not tax-deductible, as not approved as not-for-profit, but thus more flexible in handling money spending outside of Germany. FrODeV: donations are tax-deductible, we are approved as not-for-profit and as especially meritorius (besonders förderungswürdig), but thus a bit more limited in spending outside of Germany. NB: every association can decide if they want to run for it or not, so it is *not* a governmental judgement. 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: OOo Monetary Donations
Hi, Martin Hollmichel wrote on 2011-06-09 11.20: Team OOo donation are not tax-deductible, as not want have all spendings as especially meritorious. Of course Team OOo is a non-profit organization and more flexible in spendings. My understanding is that the especially meritorious term also limits spending inside Germany (see German link) indeed, having it as besonders förderungswürdig brings the benefit of getting tax bonuses and having donations as well as membership fees tax-deductible, while it limits the way you can spend. Both options do not affect, as far as I recall, the type of donations or their origin that you can accept. This combination of two associations so far worked very well, because depending on what was needed, it was one or the other association that could step in, as both models have their advantage, indeed. Just as an example: In the past, we often had it that OOoDeV/FrODeV paid for the trade show booth e.g. at CeBIT, while TeamOOo jumped in with travel fundings. 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: OOo Monetary Donations
Hi, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-09 15.21: together. The only influence Apache has is indirect, via its eventual control of the OOo trademark, logo and website. Since fundraising is a just a quick note to that - it doesn't affect the German association very much, but: Once granted use of the trademark, like for events, logo use, merchandising or entity names, can be pretty hard to be revoked. IIRC, there is no bullet-proof track record of how it was dealt with at OOo, and I myself am aware of several trademark grants that were not tied to anything. So, again, it shouldn't affect the German association that much, as their name is changed anyways, but enforcing a strict trademark policy can get hard... 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: Re-Introduction
Rob, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-07 17.56: Oh, let's not go down that path again, or else someone could equally point out that the TDF Steering Committee has not been elected yet either. I see no value from debating whose election is bigger. can you please stop these insulting positions? In contrast to the Community Council, the TDF SC follows its own rules on when it will be voted on and how, and to me, that makes a huge difference. And in contrast to the OOo Community Council, I am not aware of anyone asking the SC to run votes because of policies; whereas for OOo, there have been several people publically asking that to no avail. I'm really tired of reading your hating attitude towards everyone who drives TDF, and for the sake of moving things forward, politely ask you to simply stop it. The posts in your blog speak for themselves, and it's really insulting. And it really helps nobody here. Thanks. 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: Re-Introduction
Hi Rob, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-07 18.17: Florian, I stated a relevant fact to rebut an attempt to dismiss the input from the OOo Community Council. You do not dispute the facts. I apologize if you find this offensive. That was far from my intent. I think our collaboration will be greatly enhanced if we all act a bit less like we're made of eggshells. In community discussions you sometimes hear things you may not want to hear. let's forget about it. I'm not made out of sugar, as we have a saying in Germany. But, please, everyone, let's not focus on the past, and let's not get personal or insulting. It simply doesn't help anyone. Peace, 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: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote on 2011-06-06 02.28: Because Oracle and TDF, in confidential negotiations, could not come to an agreement. And I think that's all that need be said on the matter. well, I guess it has been mentioned on this list before, but let me state it this way: What TDF would have appreciated since its announcement, even what the wider community would have appreciated to have been given by Oracle even before TDF was announced, is *very* similar to what Apache seems to have been granted. I cannot see any real difference to the community demands the last years, and I wonder why things seemed to be impossible for the community and TDF, and seem to be possible for ASF. I do not blame ASF for anything, but, similar to what I read yesterday about your picture of our legal status, I call everyone to be cautious with rumors. Because they are simply that: Rumors. Seems like a lot of fuzz is flowing around, at the expense of the truth. Sticking to the facts instead of listening to story-tellers is sometimes helpful. 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: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 02.37: And I remind you of this response I gave you before: http://markmail.org/message/wwoxum4tuvdg5q3p I guess we're running in circles. However, I have made my points and hopefully responded to some rumors spreading (like: TDF is no choice as legal entity; TDF's demands are way too high). I believe I described the range of areas that were important to us, and clearly it was more than the license. To elaborate further could be seen as me denigrating TDF/LO, and I think that would be toxic to further collaborations, collaborations I look forward to. To me, it simply looks like TDF was simply not wanted, otherwise I guess anyone from IBM could have joined our calls, mailing lists and the like much earlier. Other members of this (general@incubator) list also seem to share similar feelings with your attitude towards TDF, but - well, I guess I made my points clear. Who recognizes them and who ignores them is, sadly, out of my scope. 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: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi Sam, Sam Ruby wrote on 2011-06-06 02.02: I can tell you that those decisions are made above Rob's and my pay grades. Way above. maybe - looking behind corporate walls, so to say, is sometimes a bit complicated. I don't personally blame anyone for this, but reading some rumors or comments, especially towards TDF and the people driving it, sometimes even feels, well, at least a bit strange. My personal summary for now is that I tried to clarify some fuzz going around, and to state why I think that setting up a parallel project does not make any sense at all, but rather leads to community splitting and market irritation, especially given that the granted source code seems to be lacking important parts, and there is no real idea on how to provide continuity for users (e.g. releasing OOo 3.4.0). All of this will do *much* harm, IMHO even more than the benefit of having the license you favor. Creative solutions for working on the licensing issue surely exist, and Simon mentioned one of them. Setting up things in parallel is not necessarily required from my POV. 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: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, Richard S. Hall wrote on 2011-06-06 16.19: However, it seems like we have lost sight of the fact that TDF split the community from OOo. Sure, Oracle is the perceived villain and TDF the perceived good guy, but it doesn't change the fact that OOo created the community in the first place. wrong perception. If a vast majority of the community steps away, because the main sponsor refuses to talk to them, amongst these community members *all* community council members who do not work for the main sponsor, plus nearly all other officials (i.e. leads or co-leads) from the community, you may allow the question who split and who is to blame. If you don't believe that, feel free to have a look into the mailing list archives. And if the people in charge respected the community that much as you seem to suggest, then I wonder why the Apache proposal has not been discussed with this community in the first place. So please stop spreading FUD like this. It won't help the further discussion here at all and just confirms the perception many of us had back in September: Some people simply do not have the slightest clue about communities. Or they *do* want to be blind. As said in my first mail: Do not look into the past. Look into the future. 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: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 18.06: The reality is that IBM employees wearing their IBM hats, have made it crystal clear on the general@incubator list that IBM is going to force The Apache Foundation to take the project. How? I am *not* saying you would be influenced or forced - I'd never doubt that you are deciding independent. However, what people may give the feeling that something's wrong are statements like these: http://www.sutor.com/c/2011/06/some-remarks-on-openoffice-going-to-apache/comment-page-1/#comment-5309 it is a done deal That might create wrong impressions... 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: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Greg, Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-06 18.36: I'll repeat what Jim said: how do you think IBM can force us to take the project? Bob can say whatever he'd like on his blog. it wasn't me who stated that, so don't ask me. :-) I stated with my previous mail that I do *not* think you are forced. What I wanted to say is that statements like these *might* lead to assumptions, and that's (IMHO) the reason why people make statements you could be influenced. The software grant is a done deal. I happen to believe the proposal will be accepted, but it is not a done deal. Ah, okay - so the software grant exists independent from the incubation result? In any case... stop assuming that what*one* person says is representative of the entire (ASF) community. That simply isn't true. No, that wasn't my intention - sorry if it looked like that. I just wanted to make help understand why people state things they do. Again, I do *not* believe you are influenced. Never did so. 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: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote on 2011-06-06 18.40: Should The ASF made responsible for every comments made on the Internet by people who are not even remotely connected to The ASF ? no, and I didn't say that. Again, I just wanted to point out why people believe things as we heard before. Don't put words in my mouth I didn't say. I am quoting my mail here again: == I am *not* saying you would be influenced or forced - I'd never doubt that you are deciding independent. However, what people may give the feeling that something's wrong are statements like these: http://www.sutor.com/c/2011/06/some-remarks-on-openoffice-going-to-apache/comment-page-1/#comment-5309 it is a done deal That might create wrong impressions... == So, where did I say that Apache was influenced, or Apache was responsible? Nowhere. 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: Question to TDF and its community
Hi Niclas, Niclas Hedhman wrote on 2011-06-06 18.12: I was on a long flight and came back to an immense number of mails here and elsewhere on this topic, so please bear with me if this has been brought up before, by someone else. hope you had a safte trip, and I can feel with you - I had several hundred mails just over the weekend. :-) I vaguely recall the fork of OOo into LibreOffice, and if memory serves me right it was due to escape Oracle's governance/influence, or something to that extent. I tried to sum-up the situation yesterday in these mails and associated links - hope that helps for some inside view: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06607.html http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06575.html http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06579.html http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06585.html Was it already at that time known that Oracle was going with a liberal license, and the fork was then a choice based in the ideological differences in licensing? Very briefly, the TDF was, among other things, created because Oracle didn't say *anything*. The move to another license was a surprise to us as well, so our decision has not been based on license ideology, but rather as we wanted to provide a good home for our community. Oracle wasn't responsive at all on so many questions. If it was not, how would the people who forked then have reacted if Oracle did then (pre-fork) what they are doing now? It is for sure hard to say, but I (personally) am sure things would have happened different. Having OOo with a foundation is part of the project's mission statement since day one, since the announcement in June 2000 (!). It's hard to say if the community had instanly agreed to a move to ASF. But, again, TDF has not been created out of licensing issues, but rather as wanted to have a safe and stable home for the community. Based on the lack of feedback from Oracle on so many important questions, there was no other choice left. And now, that we created everything, Oracle acts - something we had wished for much earlier, ideally before September 28th, 2010. But shall we now join the ASF proposal, re-creating everything we already did twice (once at OOo, then at TDF) just because Oracle finally made it, or doesn't it make more sense to work in the environment we created specifically for the needs of our community? I posted it in another message, but it's important, so I repeat: The TDF was created with support of *ALL* community council members who have been not employed by Oracle, and most co-leads and project leads joined us. I think this speaks for itself. Finally, do you (TDF) thinks it is better that Oracle gives the codebase, trademarks and other IP-rights to IBM than to Apache? The way I read the situation, that is the alternative available most likely to happen in that case, possibly as a fully internal project. Giving OOo to TDF is something Oracle simply can't do, there is likely a promise to IBM... My personal point was not so much about the software grant. If I understood this right, it exists independent from the incubation process or result. My point was that it is a waste of time and energy and split efforts, when there is a second project set-up. So, easily spoken: If ASF accepts the software grant, that's better than if it doesn't accept it. :) However, does this really need a project where people have to come up with infrastructure, marketing, QA etc., or wouldn't it make sense to join forces? 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi, Kevin Lau wrote on 2011-06-06 15.35: -Can you help me to understand this Simon posted one possible creative solution? It seems the discussion is making progress. I like to think this is appropriate to be seen in Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?) thread than here. I referred to this one: http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg28006.html I am not saying this is my preferred choice, and this is by far not a TDF statement; I am saying that there are indeed creative ways to work together, rather than setting up two projects in parallel. 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: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Greg, Hi Sam, Sam Ruby wrote on 2011-06-06 19.04: The software grant was received on 31 May. It has no conditions beyond what exists in the standard software grant that we receive from everybody: thanks for clarifying. That indeed helps a lot to understand some things for me. 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: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
Hi, no matter how the current discussion about OOo at Apache turns out, I'd be happy to meet with people. I most probably won't be able to make it to the US, but I'm on a few conferences in Europe, and surely will attend LibreOffice Conference in Paris. Despite that the current discussion maybe was (or still is) a bit heavy, I guess that's normal given what we are discussing about, so meeting people face to face and everybody seeing that, after all, we're all humans and can have a good time together over a beer, would be great. Thanks for the good proposal, Simon! 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.20: I replied on the TDF ML about #3 which, from my reading (and from what I have been told by entities both within and outside of Oracle) requested the infrastructure which was later clarified to mean servers, various hardware, access to private Oracle infrastructure, etc... Which I also think Oracle would have balked at as well... Had TDF requested just #1 and #2, as well as a more liberal license,*maybe* things would have been different... but who knows. Those sorts of questions do more to retard progress than advance it... We are here... let's continue moving forward! 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. Being the person in charge of our infrastructure, together with our team, I confirm we would not have needed any additional hardware. We have all we need, everything works like a charm and we still have lots of space and resources free. 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: Question to TDF and its community
Hi, Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 2011-06-06 23.10: Niclas, several people from TDF/LO, including Florian Effenberger, have expressed their wish that the project should be accepted on this mailing list. Simple reason: They consider the alternatives (code stays within Oracle or whatever else) worse than an OO incubator project. from what I understood, the code grant is already in place, independent from the incubation process? (I'm really asking, because I lack the details, but at least that's how I understood it.) Is the trademark grant tied to the incubation process? 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-05 16.41: Non-profit foundations are constrained to act in certain ways. For example, it is hard for either the Apache or the Free Software Foundations to close source donated code. that's the same for a German-based foundation, and exactly the same for a German-based nonprofit association, which we currently have as legal entity. So, no difference at all, except for the location. :) The German association also is bound to their statutes and rules. Workarounds would have been possible but would have been slower and less certain to succeed. Donation to a existing non-profit foundation with an established governance model is a quick and sure way to get the code out from for-profit corporate control and to the community. That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are saying everyone Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have enough. Besides, the currently existing association has a governance model, is non-profit and donations are tax-deductible. So, I really don't see this as an issue, and I guess we would have had a similar discussion of the foundation was already in effect. ;) 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: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-05 22.26: That's the impression I had from an early post here as well... Please see: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html if you want to get a good overview on the progress, here are a few (though lenghty) blog postings that might help: http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/05/24/updates-on-the-foundation/ http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg00923.html http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/04/20/status-quo-on-the-foundation-part-ii/ http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/03/18/status-quo-on-the-foundation/ 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: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 01.48: Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license? I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail to this list, but you didn't reply so far. So, if you could elaborate on that, I'd really appreciate that. 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: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, Niall Pemberton wrote on 2011-06-06 01.58: But please do elaborate on why IBM prefers a new project here rather than contributing to TDF/OO - I am very interested to know. I would be interested, too. And before you talk about stability, safety and track-record, please read these mails on the topic: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06575.html http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06579.html http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06585.html 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi Robert, I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to join in here: 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? Can you elaborate? 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi, Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05: In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org. where is this different from a German entity where donations are tax-deductible, like with the current association (which is even accredited as especially meritorious by the tax department), or the foundation currently created? 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hi, Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-04 16.28: Oracle America is the full name of the entity that granted us the code. They may not have been able to get the same tax deduction donating to a foreign entity. The tax deduction would be*considerable* given the value of the OOo brand. ah, sorry, then I understood this wrong - I understood the mail in a way that in general, an US-based solution would be better. Of course, for US-based entitites, a US foundation has advantages, whereas for European-based entities, an European foundation has advantages. What I wanted to point out is that in any way, a solution has to be found for those not located in the legislative of the foundation, so ASF and TDF have the same issues here to solve. Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's recommendation, than taxes. I tend to agree. At least it would have not been impossible at all to work around that donation isuse, if there had been a will to do so. But I guess that should not be the topic of this thread. :-) More on the other mails later on, 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
, without giving us even a feedback on what is wrong with the approach we are taking. Within any open source community, a very open and transparent communication is crucial and key to any vivid development, so not only for TDF, but also for those who have to decide on having the project as incubator at ASF, it would only be fair to get a reply. Again, I very much respect the Apache Foundation and what they do, and I am not saying it is a bad home for an open source project. What I am saying is that TDF has all the processes running, has stable infrastructure, a working release cycle, has support from enterprises, has many volunteers, for exactly the project that is being proposed. In a nutshell, many of the things an OOo at Apache project would have to find and create already do exist. Wouldn't it be better to work together on joining forces, having a cooperation inside TDF? The approach we have taken does give individuals as well as representatives of corporations power and influence to change things whe way they need them. Nothing is fixed, the community - where everyone can be part of - decides. Anyone who brings in either volunteers or paid engineers working on the code or in any other field, based on our meritocratic approach, would have an influence. I simply fear that there is a project set-up in parallel, whereas there already exists a wider community, an ecosystem, with processes, infrastructure and releases, and many sponsored and volunteer contributors. This would mean engagement is spread to two projects, rather than standing out united, speaking with one voice. And it would once again confuse users, leading to market irritation at large. Especially because no reason is given on why this should happen. I hope I replied to all questions asked. If I missed something, this was not on purpose, so feel free to ask again, and I will reply to the best of my knowledge. Again, I am here any happy to hear the problems you see in TDF, why you think another home is to be preferred. I am happy to hear and discuss them in public. Thanks for reading, 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Hello, as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented: Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50: 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. 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
