Re: What is The Apache Way?
Maybe it's about perception. Most organisations have a culture that has at least some degree of interpretation. If you want something clear cut and defined in such a way as to have no scope for interpretation you lose flexibility. Even the law gets interpretation. So perhaps its just a matter of understanding that individuals will have different perceptions of what clear expectations mean. Maybe not such a deep dysfunction as an inevitable one that is common to some degree in all orgs? On 9 January 2015 at 15:01, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: And fwiw, maybe the reason directors are chosen to represent members is because they *do* understand what the Apache Way is... Personally, I'm shocked, saddened and disappointed that this conversation is even happening, since it really clearly shows the depth of the dysfunction. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited Qualifications https://theingots.org/community/index.php?q=qualifications Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables Baseline testing and progress measures https://theingots.org/community/Baseline_testing_info The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940
Re: Can (Podling) Projects collect funds through certification programs?
On 13 December 2011 10:23, seba.wag...@gmail.com seba.wag...@gmail.comwrote: How does the ASF deal with requests from companies that would like to get a certificate as reseller of a software? Are (Podling) Projects allowed to organize a Certification program for distributors and collect funds for their project that way? Collecting funds that way is a common way of Open Source projects, also Apache has a sponsor page et cetera. However the companies listed there contribute to the Foundation in general. The question is if each project of the foundation additionally can have its own Gold, Silver, et cetera Sponsorship program. Or for example can collect funds from a list of partners similar to for example http://moodle.com/partners/list/ The Apache system means that any donated/collected funds go to the central Apache Software Foundation, not to any project in particular. That could change but there would have to be convincing arguments/evidence of the benefit as opposed to the drawbacks for the ASF community overall. With Moodle, partners are officially endorsed to use the Trademarks. At present this wouldn't work with Apache in terms of targeting an individual project. Thanks Sebastian -- Sebastian Wagner http://www.openmeetings.de http://www.webbase-design.de http://www.wagner-sebastian.com seba.wag...@gmail.com -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
Sorry for ignorance but what does binding - non-binding mean? -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
On 10 June 2011 17:49, Davanum Srinivas dava...@gmail.com wrote: Simon, Anyone interested can VOTE. If u see some of the votes they have (binding) in the text, those are from folks on the incubator pmc. Ultimately if we see a whole bunch of -1's then we check which way the pmc voted to decide if the proposal was accepted or not. So please go ahead and vote to register your view. -- dims Ok, +1 -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice LibreOffice)
On 8 June 2011 08:43, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer. Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you de-facto 'upstream'. Noel is describing a fact: It there is going to be something like upstream, it can only be an ASL licensed OO, not a LGPL'ed LO. What he misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you are reacting angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that acknowledges that this fact is just as likely to cause a total split between LO and OO. Your reaction only goes to show that this sensibility is required: Such a split would be the worst thing to happen and it is something where LO would loose nothing (compared to the time before the proposal) but would have missed a chance to win. This is really the crux of all the discussions. Is it better to maximise the development resource through cooperation or is it better to have two separate developments that end up incompatible with one another as far as code sharing is concerned? It's no good saying if this or if that because we are where we are. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle :-). So in the end it is really quite a simple choice, cooperation or separation. If it is cooperation and the licenses stay the same then to maximise resources, Noel's position is logical if not easy emotionally or philosophically for some. 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 -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Request: Can proposed committers introduce themselves?
I think it would be good if the proposed committers who have not yet done so, could post a quick note to the list, to introduce yourself and your interest in this project. Think of this as an opportunity to introduce yourself to your future collaborators on Apache OpenOffice. Ian Lynch, cut my coding teeth on Algol W (IBM 370). BBC BASIC, 6502, 6809 and ARM Assembler. Now I don't have time to hack, I run a UK government accredited Awarding Organisation and I'm trying to build a global service business that can support FOSS and liberally licensed content for education. We have 6 people working in the company based in the UK and we have active projects in Malaysia, Kenya, USA, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain and Netherlands all at various stages. Something in South America in relation to OOo specifically seems imminent. I have been a member of the OOo marketing community since the early days leading education for a time and I was a co-founder of the Open Document Fellowship. I'm quite interested in developing businesses that can support FOSS development and obviate the need for closed software licenses. I think the most important aspect of all this is ISO26300 because it and its developments enable a rich range of FOSS implementations in the document space. I'm sure this will migrate to the cloud so current OOo/LO implementations are going to have to change. In terms of certification, we are product neutral. Most of our customers get their IT user certificates using MS products. There was not sufficient demand early on for an exclusive we only deal with FOSS products stance and getting to users of proprietary licensed software at least gives them the opportunity to see that there are alternatives. We use a Lamp stack and Drupal for our core business, Libre Office on Ubuntu. We only use Windows and IE for testing the web site - lots of schools still on IE6 unfortunately a real pain ;-) My main constraint is time as I am constantly needing to find ways of keeping everyone here employed while we develop the business. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
On 8 June 2011 22:50, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Dave Fisher wrote: 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. 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... Well ... that's an interesting question. While hiring could happen outside of the ASF, AFAIK there is nothing to stop us from accepting funds and having a group (analogous to our Travel Assistance process) that offered payment, a la Google Code or other. I do agree that I'd like to see the Board and Membership weigh in on that discussion if/when it ever becomes one. Presumably it would also be possible to have a group outside ASF called eg Friends of Open Office ( FOO) that raised money and put it to code development or marketing or whatever. Not saying that is the best way just its a possibility. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Question to TDF and its community
On 7 June 2011 06:49, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: With OOo the company was nasty and people went away and were happy. The company wants the project at the ASF, and some people complain now. After all I never really heard the words I want it at the ASF from somebody with OOo adress I have an OOo address and I want it at Apache for the following reasons. 1. Better to be at Apache than to go somewhere that could be more damaging to LibreOffice and TDF. Maybe that sounds illogical to some but it seems sensible to me :-). 2. If I had a first choice it would probably be give it to TDF but I know that hell will probably freeze before that happens. 3. There are also advantages to the liberal license in proliferation of odf. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Added Education Project idea to the OpenOffice.org Apache incubator
Note, I've signed up as a mentor on the proposal. We need to convince Ian Lynch to get involved too (if he's not already), but I'll work on him later ;-) So far, Ian never helped us, but who knows :-) You might remember we did talk a few months back. My problem is simply that getting the certification through the regulatory processes and financially viable is more than a full time job already. We have mouths to feed here :-). However it has potential to produce income that could fund development. Not there yet but the OOo certification project is currently in negotiation with a large training provider in South America that could make a significant difference. It's also the sort of thing that can attract EU grant funding - Comenius funding for meetings and exchanges between schools should be easy. I can help with that sort of thing. We have a grant application in for about 300,000 Euros for developing OOo certification with the EU through Germany. Even if this is not successful we can do other applications.
Re: Re-Introduction
On 7 June 2011 16:08, Volker Merschmann merschm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Robert, 2011/6/7 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote: Tomorrow, the OpenOffice.org Community Council will hold a meeting to discuss What Now? It's not going to be our last meeting. I don't know what will happen to OOo as such. But I am confident that we've so far seen enough energy and interest to ensure that there will continue to be code and a project making it. Apache is community centered with an open culture. Please encourage as many people as possible to come together to contribute their ideas into the mix. You shoul not expect too much, as all non-Oracle-employed council-members have left the council last year and the seats had not been re-elected... Hi Volker, The Council wasn't the sum total of everyone, already a lot of non-Oracle people are on the commit list and people who were never on a Council no reason not to include TDF members too. Let's be inclusive and positive, this is new opportunities and new horizons :-) -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Re-Introduction
On 7 June 2011 16:27, Volker Merschmann merschm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ian, 2011/6/7 Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com: On 7 June 2011 16:08, Volker Merschmann merschm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Robert, 2011/6/7 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote: Tomorrow, the OpenOffice.org Community Council will hold a meeting to discuss What Now? It's not going to be our last meeting. I don't know what will happen to OOo as such. But I am confident that we've so far seen enough energy and interest to ensure that there will continue to be code and a project making it. Apache is community centered with an open culture. Please encourage as many people as possible to come together to contribute their ideas into the mix. You shoul not expect too much, as all non-Oracle-employed council-members have left the council last year and the seats had not been re-elected... The Council wasn't the sum total of everyone, already a lot of non-Oracle people are on the commit list and people who were never on a Council no reason not to include TDF members too. Let's be inclusive and positive, this is new opportunities and new horizons :-) Oh, you shouldn't misinterpret me. Robert asked for this in connection with the mention of the OOo community council, which does not have community in it, nor can it fully represent it. That was my point. No negatives about the Apache thing here. Maybe you were misinterpreting Robert then :-) All he said was encourage as many people as possible. Certainly he didn't say *only* people at the meeting. They will have contacts. Touché ? ;-) -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Re-Introduction
and another one: Der Klügere gibt nach. 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, Gut gemacht. ;-) Vorwärts und aufwärts (Hope that translated ok, if not I'll stick to guten morgen and delete Google translate ;-) ) -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal
2011/6/7 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net It is only that you have at a rather low-traffic apache list guests who are used to discuss on high-traffic lists. And discussion is often with lots of emotion (but seems to clam down). Ah, nostalgia, it's just like the good old days on the OOo marketing list :-) “Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion.” (Hebbel 1813-1863). -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a division of markets conversation?
On 6 June 2011 08:25, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Hey. Feel free to spin your theories. It just isn't possible to divide markets around ALv2 code. We had a lot of these competition discussions/arguments with BECTA in the UK. They never grasped that FOSS is not a product in the sense of a product owned by a company or cartel sold at a price. They would say things like we can't back FOSS because it is an unfair advantage to one product and at the same time make a procurement framework that was only possible to bid for with software licenses! Anyone is free to use FOSS so it is not a product in the company ownership sense, its more like a business method that is open to all. BECTA was effectively giving unfair advantage to one business method over another for years yet no competition issue was ever raised. As far as I can see, saying the Apache role is to maintain a common code base and the TDF role is to use it in a specific way is no different from saying the OASIS role is to hold and define the ISO 26300 standard and other people can build products and services around it. OASIS is not bound to produce a product. If two dominant market players colluded to divide up a definable service based on any product eg by price fixing it would be illegal but I don't see any scope for this in these discussions. If we said we'll jointly market OOo T-shirts and promise to not sell them other than at $10, that would be illegal. I can't see that is the same as saying that in general people will be allowed to use the TM on T-shirts if they give back $X to the project development. While this is not really relevant to the incubator vote, I think clarification of consequences/issues of working together is still important.
Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a division of markets conversation?
On 6 June 2011 11:34, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org wrote: IMHO - if there is any such risk - we 1) should both help the regulators understand the situation better and 2) do this in such a transparent way that members of our communities are better equipped to have their part of that conversation. And this is nothing new or special - plenty of (industry) standards bodies have had this issue - and the drive for open standards and readily accessible documentation, both from a regulatory point as well from a post-damage repair perspective, is now well understood and common. We got fairly close to these issues some 10-12 years ago - but (I personally think that we) where saved by the fast growth of java and other projects (and the fact that the internet was still tiny as an industry). And hence we never really addressed this. But perhaps it is time to do so. Thanks, Dw (who is happy to commit to making a stab at this on the East side of the atlantic). In my experience, building relationships with regulators is a very good idea. So +1 from me.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6 June 2011 12:43, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.orgwrote: 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. Even from the outset it seemed to me that the OOo code would get accepted to the Apache incubator. (Ok, I could be wrong but the consequences of not being accepted could be a lot worse as well as possibly better) If that is the situation what is the best way to work co-operatively for the best outcome for user continuity? The discussions here have indicated many important roles for TDF and I don't think any serious suggestions for TDF not being necessary. It's not going to be easy but then most things worth achieving aren't easy and carry risks ;-) -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6 June 2011 16:39, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote: On 6/6/11 11:26, Simos Xenitellis wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote: On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: Hi Richard, * 2011/6/6 Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote: On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitzphil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Disclaimer: I work for Oracle, but certainly don't speak for them and I knew nothing about this other than what i've read on these mailing lists... 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. Fact: Your employer provoked the split, by a absolute non-communication on the existing mailinglist. Now, to say that TDF has split the Communtiy is dishonest! Forking splits communities. Whether you feel you had a justified reason for doing so does not change this fact. I am not weighing in on whether it is right or wrong in this case, since I think that is immaterial to where we are now. That's an example of denial. I do not see a conductive environment here if such attitudes are tolerated. I am only going by the facts as presented on the various Apache mailing lists. If it is true that TDF was engaged by Oracle/IBM before the Apache proposal, but failed to come to terms, then I cannot see how one can claim that the Apache proposal was merely an attempt to split the community. You should read more about free and open-source software, from diverse sources. Get a lwn.net subscription. Similar example, there was XFree86 long time ago that behaved just like the Oracle developers. Then, it was forked into X.Org and everyone moved to X.Org. XFree86 is a distant memory. Ok, forget the first part of what I originally said, since it doesn't really matter and apparently it prevents any discussion of the second part... The second part was, was TDF actually engaged and failed to come to terms or not? That is what I've read, so I accepted this as true. If so, do you actually believe the Apache proposal is just a stick in the eye of the TDF by Oracle/IBM because they were angry they couldn't come to terms? Or do you believe that because they couldn't come to terms they created this proposal to form their own community of like-minded people? I would have to assume the latter, not the former. And the natural extension is that if there is no home for the OOo code with Apache where will it end up? That scenario is not without risk either.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6 June 2011 17:08, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:46, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: ... And the natural extension is that if there is no home for the OOo code with Apache where will it end up? That scenario is not without risk either. As I've said elsewhere, I would lobby our Board for an unsupported tarball of the granted code, under the ALv2. Let others pick it up and do whatever they'd like with it. From a TDF point of view I should think that would be not a bad option. I believe the project will enter the Incubator. Making a release with the currently granted assets appears near impossible, but I believe that can be rectified. It will be a challenge to do a release and to carry onwards through graduation. I'm optimistic, but not positive. Cheers, -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Question to TDF and its community
On 6 June 2011 17:12, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: 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? If it was not, how would the people who forked then have reacted if Oracle did then (pre-fork) what they are doing now? First question - probably not but if so it was a well kept secret! Second question already asked and I think the answer depends on individuals. Some people are committed copylefters, others aren't. 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... Certainly I have tried to point out that if Apache did not accept the code it could end up being a worse rather than better scenario. Recent thinking seems to be that the code could end up as an unsupported tarball in an Apache repository open to anyone. Depends on whether the final code is actually buildable when all the dust settles. I think it probably will be but there are a lot of unknowns in this so its an educated guess at best.
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Look guys, this is going round in circles. I'm not an ASF or TDF member but I spent quite a lot of time and effort on OOo and ODF in the past so I care what happens. The fact is the software grant is made. My understanding is that if the code goes into the incubator it does not even guarantee it will emerge as a marketable product. It might just sit on a shelf in ASF gathering dust because no-one really has the resources to do anything with it. OTOH it might thrive and take over the desktop office world (I wish :-) ) . At this point there is no way of knowing. All this incubator process is supposed to do is see if ASF members think it has some potential. Its good to get all the issues out in the open but this one on the IBM conspiracy theory is really exhausted. It's not going to change anything. Let's say we persuaded the good guys at Apache that this is a ploy to manipulate them and they reject the code. Where then will it go? If conspiracy is right it definitely won't be to TDF and it could be to somewhere a lot more damaging to TDF than the ASF. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 6 June 2011 18:09, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr wrote: Hi, Le 6 juin 11 à 19:00, Ian Lynch a écrit : Look guys, this is going round in circles. I'm not an ASF or TDF member but I spent quite a lot of time and effort on OOo and ODF in the past so I care what happens. The fact is the software grant is made. My understanding is that if the code goes into the incubator it does not even guarantee it will emerge as a marketable product. Why do you believe that ? Several people like me are simply waiting for checkout the sources. I really expect myself to begin asap, per see where we *really* are. I said it didn't guarantee it, not that it was not possible or likely. My point was that to get accepted into the incubator there is no need for absolute certainty of development, that comes later. (If I have understood the Apache process correctly) (PS glad for your enthusiasm :-) )
Re: End Users ?
On 5 June 2011 20:04, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: So I agree that supporting end users is critical, but I think the way that this is done in practice, does not necessarily require great centralized planning. I'd say too much centralised planning for end user support is probably a backward step. We do certification which encourages end-users to become more self-sufficient. We could do that unilaterally but we do want to put something back. OOo marketing project has mainly been successful through individual initiatives rather than great centralised plans - apart from anything else the money required for global marketing campaigns simply doesn't exist. End-user support is more through projects like OOoAuthors, Solveig Haugland and Gabriel Gurley's books, the competiton we ran for kids with OOo schools mascot Otto. I don't see any reason why such things and more will not get supported simply because the code is with the ASF.
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On 5 June 2011 18:47, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be raised here... But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try to be the preeminent Windows or OS/X port of the software, since by definition improving GPL works for a closed source operating system is something of an oxymoron. It's worth pointing out that many of the LO people are not necessarily religious about the license. Most migrated from a situation where their software was on Windows in much bigger volume than Linux. (I'm not sure of the Linux/Windows balance of LO installations but its likely to be more towards Linux simply by pre-installation) They might decide to focus on GNU/Linux distros but that is really a matter for their community. One of the concerns is that the license issue could split the existing LO community since some might be unconcerned about working on AL code and others might not want to touch it. In a way the problem is because there will be differences of view on that and you either adopt code or you don't, you can't have a halfway compromise and keep a common code base. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 5 June 2011 21:59, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: It is amazing how much paperwork is involved, at a large corporation, to enable such things. Good reason to set up your own company ;-)
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On 4 June 2011 11:33, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: 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. 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. I think this is a little extreme :-) I don't see much positive efforts at derailing, just people trying to work out what it all means in terms of their own perspective, value systems and their ownership of their work. I think the discussions are surprisingly cordial given the circumstances. EQ is going to be just as important as IQ in resolving all this. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war ~ John Adams - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On 4 June 2011 12:19, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: 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. That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing the good and the potential of this effort. like: Jagielski says what is typical for Apache is building (or even _re-building_) communities around those codebases. ... He says that makes Apache the perfect place to help '_repair_' the community around OpenOffice.org ... Weir also encourages the idea of doing core OO.org development in Apache and then having additional work done by _derivatives_. ... ? I can see why some might read into those statements implications that probably were not intended. That is the problem with perspectives :-) Is this saying TDF is responsible for breaking the OOo community? - I don't think so but some might read it as that. We all know the age old problem of communication by mailing list or news article. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: 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. 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. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On 4 June 2011 13:47, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: 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. So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code they own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of view but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an Apache license doesn't have to. In that sense there is a need for LO with a copyleft license. There can still be cooperation to try and make the best out of that situation. 2 options - 1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo. 2. TDF/LO cooperate with ASF to keep two versions of the code but with minimum divergence and maximum commonality given the licensing contstraints. Personally I prefer option 2. Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient support and stagnates, TDF LO carry on developing what becomes the main used code base. Or ApacheOOo attracts developers from TDF and it thrives and TDF dies. Or both thrive as two separate projects in their own right. Possible consequences of Option 2. There are versions of the code derived from the Apache licensed version that are substantially technically the same but at least one is licensed copy left and supported by those that believe this license is the only one they can work with (TDF/LO) Ok there are other possibilities too but I have discounted move everything to LibreO or move everything to Apache because I can't see either of those options being practically possible. I'd be happy to be proved wrong :-) -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Recuse as mentor?
On 4 June 2011 12:52, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wote: Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties, or whatever... There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that I have done wrong, or did not do, or did not due to someone's satisfaction. If people want, I will happily remove myself as mentor. This is supposed to be fun and at least *somewhat* fulfilling... Hello Jim, There is no question that the former OpenOffice community is now fractured, and some people have some strong negative feelings about certain parties. That is an environment which neither of us caused but it is what it is and something we need to deal with. With that backdrop, I have been perplexed and concerned with some of your public postings. They have been things I might expect to see coming from a member of the gallery, but not from the President of the Apache Software Foundation, a project mentor, and a person who I would think would be trying to promote a sense of community. Its seems that you have a high level of mistrust for certain persons and are not prepared to reach out magnanimously to all parties in an attempt to bring them together. I see this as creating ongoing problems. When I initially read your offer to recuse yourself as a mentor, I read it and gave it some thought but had no immediate response. With your post this morning however, and while speaking only as a member of the OpenOffice community and a guest here at the Apache Software Foundation, I am now prepared to accept your offer to recuse yourself as a mentor. As a long time member of the OOo community myself I say you should stay. This is all a bit contentious so let's try to keep things friendly and if we say things we regret or are taken the wrong way, apologise and move on. Thank you, Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On 4 June 2011 15:46, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby: 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. I do not know if that is a valid perspective or not, but I think that the categorical statement (necessary consequence) contained in it is false. The license used for the Linux kernel certainly does not cast the widest possible net but I do not see significant fragmentation, quite the contrary. There is essentially one and the same kernel used by (almost) all Linux distributions (with rather small modifications). Much of the Apache Software Foundation infrastructure is run on FreeBSD. OS/X is built upon a similar base. If we wish to join forces (and to be clear, that's my preferred option) it behoves us to enable the Darwins of the world. Alternately (and NOT my preferred option) lets decide that we are pursuing separate goals and find other ways to support each other. (Generally: When a net is to wide it can get teared up.) The problem with all analogies is that they are fundamentally flawed. :-) Yes, they are for Language graduates not technologists ;-) There is clearly risk in any strategy to move forward but there is no point in obfuscating the risk calculation by including constants as if they were variables. Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is not a value judgement. Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way round Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will not want to work on non- CL code Fact: ASF will not change its license Given these it seems certain to me that there will be two projects. Its up to the players to makes sure that they thrive rather than die. I believe we can do this so let's just do it. Cheers, Andreas - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
On 4 June 2011 16:54, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is not a value judgement. Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way round Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will not want to work on non- CL code Fact: ASF will not change its license Given these it seems certain to me that there will be two projects. Its up to the players to makes sure that they thrive rather than die. I believe we can do this so let's just do it. There are a few reasons to not jump to this conclusion just yet, not the least of which is that the ASF has not even voted to accept this project for incubation. It is also possible that there are enough TDF people who are willing to accept the Apache License and would prefer that these codebases not further diverge. Hm, I think there will always be sufficient who are philosophically in the CopyLeft camp. That really means it's the balance that is not known. Ok if that balance shifts too far to one side or another the other project is likely to die but that is probably going to take time beyond the incubation period to determine. If OOo doesn't make it through to the incubator I guess TDF and LO will just carry on from where they are. In that case those that feel strongly that is the best outcome won't want the vote to go in favour. Since Ross said a good reason not to accept the code would be needed, the only candidate I can see is that it will effectively result in 2 projects. That is a value judgement Apache members will have to decide but they might well take the view that a more permissive license trumps 2 projects - well they are Apache people so they must believe in the license :-) It is this reasoning that leads me to the conclusions stated. That being said, if we do (however reluctantly) come to the point where we need to make the conclusion you described above, lets see if we can work together to produce a joint statement to that effect. In particular, lets put all past mistakes in what each of has said (or failed to say) publicly behind us. I wholeheartedly agree. The people I have worked with at OOo and LO and Ross I know from Apache, are all good people. Let's respect differences and show what the community can do. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On 4 June 2011 13:37, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. I'll assert that there is a subset of participants on this list, taking part in this discussion and whom have added their names to the proposed committers list who feel strongly that the proposed project's efforts should include a strong end-user focus. That is certainly true of myself and I suspect Manfred Reiter. We are both interested in certification and marketing as we both have professional backgrounds in vocational education and training. I was formerly education lead for OOo and Manfred formerly co-lead for the German project. We are currently collaborating in EU funded projects. I wrote an application for funding that is being presented through the German National Agency for an OpenOffice.org certification project - even if this application failed we can do others and the focus has to be impact on end-users. I'm willing to believe that there is also a subset that thinks otherwise. If these difference can be resolved, that would be best. But if not, I'll suggest that this is a fundamental difference of vision which probably cannot be reconciled within a single proposal. If for some organisational reason it is better for us to be in camp foo rather than camp bar we have no problem. We just want to help people get free and open source office productivity tools. We will work cooperatively with anyone who has similar broad goals. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: RE: OO/LO License
Maybe stop lurking :-) Your contributions will be valuable On 4 Jun 2011 22:06, Manfred A. Reiter ma.rei...@gmail.com wrote: sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-) ## Manfred
Re: OO/LO License
Agreed. The main problem is if say the majority of knowledgeable developers only want their work licensed copyleft. On 4 Jun 2011 23:50, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: On 6/4/2011 11:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it shoul... The code was used under multiple licenses. While it may be true that LGPL was the only Open Source license, it was not in fact the only license. The choice of ALv2 going forward would ensure continuity for all constituencies under a single well accepted open source license, with all parties on equal footing. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: gene...
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
On 3 June 2011 14:31, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote: (3) There is even talk as to why? I'm also curious as to why they would need or want to transfer the project to Apache. Only the person who made that decision knows the answer, and if you ask them, you might get an answer, and it might even be the real answer. But you never know. I will offer you my analysis though as a neutral observer, which might help with the understanding. It is not an uncommon model for companies to take a program they own and release an open-source version while continuing to sell a proprietary version that includes additional features and technical support. Among other reasons: - Build a community around the application, hoping to upsell organizations to the proprietary version. - Get bug reports and code contributions that they can use in the proprietary version. Sun acquired the StarOffice program by acquiring the company that created it. That is a common reason for one company to acquire another: to acquire the company's technology. It has been said that Sun was looking for an office suite for SunOS, both for Sun's customers and for Sun's own employees. Acquiring StarOffice met that need at a reasonable cost. After acquiring StarOffice, Sun released an open source version called OpenOffice, for the reasons listed above. As mentioned in a prior post, Sun required all community contributions to the open source version to include a copyright assignment to Sun, so they could use those contributions in their proprietary version. This was rigorously enforced. Oracle acquired Sun, primarily it is said to acquire Sun's Java and MySQL products. StarOffice and OpenOffice came along for the ride. Oracle continued to sell StarOffice, but changed the name to Oracle Open Office, and continued the open source version, just like Sun, using the same employees. Oracle also envisioned creating an online version of Open Office that would be similar to Google Docs. Neither of the plans worked out. Over at Oracle, sales and marketing runs the show, not the engineers. The Oracle sales force, which is accustomed to being paid big commissions for large dollar sales, was not happy pushing a $35 per seat office suite. Meanwhile, little headway was made turning the bloated and complex code into an online version. Oracle gave the program a short time frame to show $$$ results, and it did not make the cut. So they pulled the plug. Meanwhile, Oracle has this open source community inherited from Sun, to which they had been paying lip service. In order to avoid a complete public-relations disaster, Oracle declared, we are going to turn this project over to the open source community. In addition, Oracle also has a relationship with IBM, who had taken the code, under license from Sun, and created their own proprietary derivative, IBM Lotus Symphony. It has been said that Oracle has some sort of contractual obligation to IBM to continue development of the code, although I don't know if that is true or not or what the terms of that agreement are. IBM has had more success with IBM Lotus Symphony than Sun had with StarOffice. Symphony is an important product in the IBM portfolio, and they were not going to drop it. IBM also wished to continue the basic structure Sun had in place and from which IBM has also been benefitting: a proprietary version along with open source version. IBM recognized however that Sun's prior system of requiring a copyright assignment had led to dissatisfaction in the open source community and eventually to a fork. So they decided to change the arrangement to an Apache License, which was more symmetrical and which had worked for many other projects, including projects IBM has been involved in. IBM probably selected the Apache Software Foundation as a place to host the project for similar reasons. This arrangement also satisfied Oracle's stated intention to turn the code over to the open source community. So here was are. It has been asked whether this is simply a code dump. For Oracle, it is exactly that. They do not care about the code and are simply unloading it. The primary driver of this proposal through is IBM, not Oracle. For IBM, it may or not be a code dump--I can't say for sure either way. I personally do not believe it is a code dump. I personally believe that IBM wants OpenOffice to continue as an open source project for exactly the reasons listed above. I'm not so naive to believe IBM is acting altruistically, but I believe that as long as IBM continues to get the desired benefits from it, they will continue to be involved in the open source project. If however the benefits do not materialize, there is a definite possibility IBM might pull out, leaving the project to whomever remains. It has been asked whether Oracle employees will still be involved or permitted to be involved in
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Hi Florian, I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up at Apache or any other entity. Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any other foundation. So we are where we are. Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure volunteer work, I am not backed by any corporation, and I invest a lot of time and heart into these things. Dedicating myself to be against someone or something, or acting just out of envy, is surely not what I plan to use my spare free time for. I am also sure that TDF and ASF can cooperate and act like adults. Yes, given where we are there is room for both. I'd like to see TDF leaders on the commit list. This would mean that there was a real link for collaboration. The main differences are the difference in licensing and TDF's broader support of the odf file format. It doesn't need to detract from TDF or its work. I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others can comment much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play together, and what ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be with or without other entities. I see the licensing as an opportunity. We can have both a permissive and copyleft development and those philosophically committed to either can find a good home. Ok, we need to work together to make the two code bases work together but that is a small price to pay for wider community cohesion. I'd love to focus much more on the community and project side of things, and this is the part of my initial message that I still feel is unreplied: Why do we need a second project? You might not need one, but it is there, it isn't really a choice, its a situation and we need to make the best of it. From all those who propose the project at ASF, I have not heard much feedback on why this should happen, or otherwise said, on why TDF would be the wrong place to do it. Its simply what Oracle did. We can't change it so we have to live with it. I do not want to juggle with numbers, but I guess nobody can deny that TDF has set up a project, processes, infrastructure and an environment to work in, that there is a lot of stable basis. And I guess that nobody can doubt we have been as open and transparent as possible. And, looking at the activity inside the OpenOffice.org project, I guess nobody can deny either that at least the vast majority of the OpenOffice.org community has moved on to TDF. I am not saying 100%, I am not saying 99%, but saying that there was a vivid community activity within OpenOffice.org the last months would be wrong, too. Look, TDF people did and are doing a great job. Probably you guys precipitated OOo going to a community foundation. Ok, its not 100% perfect but its better than some of the alternatives. So let's work together to make it work and we respect what TDF has achieved. We respect TDF if it wants to continue developing a copyleft distribution of OOo. What we can't change is what Oracle did, they bought Sun and the put the OOo IP with ASF. IBM, as far as I know, did not participate in that, so it is not us to blame if for you now certain things are not as you would like to have them. Only those who raise their voice can be heard. I think this works both ways. Probably things are not 100% perfect for anyone but compromises sometimes have to happen. So, as I feel my question in the first mail has not been answered yet, I'd like to repeat it, and extend it on one further question, to everyone who supports the incubator proposal: - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of a free office suite? I think this is the wrong question. There is nothing at all wrong with TDF, its just different in that it is developing code to a different license and that difference is important to some people. Oracle are not going to change and put the IP with TDF so we have to accept it and move on. That does not mean TDF is unimportant. It is just as important as before! Maybe more so as TDF leaders can become influential with OOo under ASF in a way they could not be with Oracle. - Why didn't those who propose this project talk to TDF about the issues that mattered to them and tried to change it? To me, the current approach feels like denying cooperation with TDF at any price, On the contrary, I see no reason why TDF people can not join the ASF and have influence beyond what they had with Sun or Oracle. Think of the Apache and LGPL as complementary rather than competing. 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
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 June 2011 17:16, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License. As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to replace their original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License. But I have questions about their ability to relicense new contributions, based on what I read at http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing policy linked from there. It does not seem clear to me that TDF can unilaterally relicense all contributions. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org At least to start with they don't need to change anything. They can carry on producing a copyleft product and cooperate with ASF to make the two projects work as harmoniously as possible. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 June 2011 18:21, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Ian Lynch wrote: Noel J. Bergman: Sam Ruby wrote: From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License. As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to replace their original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License. But I have questions about their ability to relicense new contributions, based on what I read at http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing policy linked from there. It does not seem clear to me that TDF can unilaterally relicense all contributions. At least to start with they don't need to change anything. No, they don't. But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License, which makes it much easier to (quoting you, now), cooperate with ASF to make the two projects work as harmoniously as possible. At least some folks at TDF seem to feel slighted by recent developments. I understand, but they should not, at least from the ASF's perspective. TDF did nothing wrong, and there is nothing wrong with TDF. They did the best that they could with the licensing cards dealt to them. That situation has now changed, with the software grant to the ASF and resulting change in licensing. That change is essential to various parties, and while it should not be taken to reflect negatively on TDF, nor can it be ignored. The license is, as Sam said, essential. As Sam said, if TDF is willing and able to relicense, all sorts of frictionless exchange would be possible, and all sorts of divisions of labor could be contemplated. In fact, the division of labor could be dynamic in that we could experiment with all sorts of different arrangements and find out what works best. Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense all of the contributions it has received. I think that is a step further on. To start with we need TDF to feel less threatened by all this. Let's relax and work together and see what comes out of the licensing issues. Whether or not they want to change their license they are colleagues and friends first and foremost. I think we all need to respect that these decisions are for TDF to make in their own good time. In the mean time we have to first get commitment to work together on things as they stand. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 June 2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating ideological division as a given... Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... that *is* a given. If people are wondering if we would change our license or even allow dual-licensing, then that is not going to happen. Not anything in particular about OOo. It's just the fact. Which is exactly why I say we are where we are and we should deal with it even if it is to agree to disagree on some things. Can we work together and resolve issues so that people can enjoy using FOSS office software? That is really the fundamental question. Are we committed to use the available resources within the constraints we have? If we can agree that we are a good way forward. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...
Reality is what matters. So let's make the best reality possible :-) On 3 Jun 2011 23:15, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: 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... 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 ... 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... 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: gen...
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
In the long run we are all dead ;-) So let's concentrate on the short run to start with. On 4 Jun 2011 01:24, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:1... 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. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: gener...
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Should we add ourselfs as commiters? If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the proposal on the wiki. I'm not likely to commit code. I run an accredited awarding organisation with permission from Oracle to use the OOo name on certificates as part of the certification project. We have definite interest from training companies and certification will help in the marketing process and could fund developers. So my question is where will we stand if the OOo trademarks are transferred to Apache? -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Training Certifications and Trademark
On 2 June 2011 14:27, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 09:12:10 AM: From: Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: 06/02/2011 09:12 AM Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Should we add ourselfs as commiters? If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the proposal on the wiki. I'm not likely to commit code. I run an accredited awarding organisation with permission from Oracle to use the OOo name on certificates as part of the certification project. We have definite interest from training companies and certification will help in the marketing process and could fund developers. So my question is where will we stand if the OOo trademarks are transferred to Apache? Hi Ian, A similar question came up yesterday. Apache trademark policy is here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ IANAL, but I suspect it will be critical whether the use is like: OpenOffice Certified Professional These are end user certificates based on the UK National Occupational Standards and referenced to the European Qualifications Framework. They are generic in the sense they are certificates in eg Word Processing rather than Writer but we intended putting the OOo/LO (Could be Apache I suppose) logo on the certificate to show it was achieved in the context of the specific product. This keeps compatibility with the national and European systems which we think is more powerful than a vendor approach. Community endorsement would be good but not essential. We will give back a contribution from the certification fee to the community and of course certification will help with marketing. Since the quality assurance is through the UK government regulatory system, it means that the community does not need to have any special committees for this as long as they are happy with independent government regulation. (We have an Open Source independent community rep on our board of governors and our Chairman was formerly commercial director and a full board member of IBM) We do in fact have an EU grant application submitted through Germany to support transfer of innovation to other countries. We also have a sophisticated on-line system based on Drupal and a LAMP stack for managing evidence provision and quality assurance agreed with the UK regulators. We can provide user certification for a wide range of FOSS projects Inkscape, GIMP, etc, it's just that OOo seems to be the first where there is definite demand. versus Foo Certification for OpenOffice. In other words, does the certificate imply (or has the likelihood of confusing the reader to believe) that the endorsement comes from Apache? As it stands it would be a certificate with an OOo logo on it (And the logos of the UK national qualifications regulators for England, Wales and NI - Scotland has a separate education system) We are also endorsed by the UK Sector Skills Council for Business and IT since they produced the assessment criteria, we just provide the assessment model. If we take the OOo logo away it rather defeats the purpose since we are already providing the generic certification in any case we just don't take any real notice of the product used and for many people it doesn't matter. The idea was to have a mechanism for getting resource to the OOo community (or LO, Inkscape, Gimp etc for that matter) So I'm not sure if using the OOo logo on a certificate goes beyond nominative use. I'd say I'd err on the side of caution and say it does. In any case, when Apache OpenOffice becomes an official project, there will be people you can contact to review/get approval for use of the trademark, within per the policy. But I don't think we can guarantee that no adjustments will be needed. How long is it likely to take? We have a significant potential customer wanting to get started in September and it means I have to go to Equador to train people! I'm not going to go from UK to SA if there is uncertainty about use of the OOo logo on the certificates. BTW, the committers list on the wiki is not just for C++ programmers. If you think you'll be contributing other project assets, whether in-product help, tutorials, test cases, translations, etc., that is all within the role of a committer. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed opportunity to reunite. If we all agree on that point, can we please move on? Seems to me the main issue is the license. Permissive Apache or Copyleft. Those who want to be associated with permissive licensed code will come to Apache, those that want a copyleft license will go to TDF. Those that don't care will contribute to both or work with the community they like the best :-). Since it seems unlikely that those that feel strongly about it will be moved, the crux is whether either, both or neither code base gets sufficient support to sustain its maintenance and development. Only time will tell and only time will tell to what extent the code will diverge if both projects prove viable. So what further debate is to be had? Is it not just a matter of seeing how many committers sign up to make Apache OOo viable? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 2 June 2011 17:18, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed opportunity to reunite. If we all agree on that point, can we please move on? Seems to me the main issue is the license. Permissive Apache or Copyleft. Those who want to be associated with permissive licensed code will come to Apache, those that want a copyleft license will go to TDF. Those that don't care will contribute to both or work with the community they like the best :-). Since it seems unlikely that those that feel strongly about it will be moved, the crux is whether either, both or neither code base gets sufficient support to sustain its maintenance and development. Only time will tell and only time will tell to what extent the code will diverge if both projects prove viable. So what further debate is to be had? Is it not just a matter of seeing how many committers sign up to make Apache OOo viable? My impression is that TDF likes having the OOo codebase as AL2 since they can consume it directly. Of course, the reverse is not possible, but that is the advantage of an AL type license: after all, having the code under the AL helps the developer community as well as commercial entities. If the intent is having OOo as pervasive as possible, then it's obvious that AL wins big time. I'd expect you to advocate an AL :-) My real point is that irrespective of the merits of each license, it is this difference that is the main objective reason that two forks would be sustained. Maybe I'm missing something else but I can't see what that would be - apart from personal ownership and sense of belonging which is probably at is highest now but will likely decline over time. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On 2 June 2011 21:22, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: 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 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. Emotionally, ownership (in its broadest sense) is a factor but if we put that aside for a minute, the only real issue *is* licensing. If there was complete agreement on licensing why would there be a need for more than one project? If a developer is totally committed to a copyleft license they might prefer to contribute to a copyleft licensed product development and same for a developer that wants a more permissive license the other way. If you are not bothered either way it won't matter. So the only other practical consideration is whether Apache OOo will get sufficient support. There are 9 names on the commit list which seems surprisingly few to me but maybe everyone is just waiting to see what happens. I'm wondering whether the document foundation could not as its name suggests become more about odf as a format? I helped start the OpenDocument Fellowship with that in mind so I think there is a need. LibreOffice could be a copyleft licensed version of the more liberally licensed Apache code. So on that model all stays much the same but with agreed cooperation to get the best out of it. Main long term problem I see is a potential divergence of the code due to the different licenses but I can't see how that risk can be avoided in the circumstances. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
