Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
-1 My list of 44 reasons is here: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567 To boil it down to one: this plan as announced had several big flaws, and they still exist. Kind regards, -Keith P.S. I don't see many from LibreOffice voting against this proposal, so I joined again to vote on their behalf. P.P.S. Hopefully more register their votes on this important matter like good netizens. The cheapest thing now is to vote no so we can make a better plan.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
Maybe the people from LibreOffice are not voting against because, even though they believe there could have been better solutions, given the current situation they prefer that OOo is approved as a podling: see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/5824 for a more detailed (personal) opinion from a Steering Committee member. Hi; I think Italo is incorrect saying voting no would be a defeat for free software. It is an honest mistake. People don't know what else could happen, because alternatives are not being discussed. I have noticed many think no other plans are possible. This forces people to vote yes. I think LibreOffice people are quiet for various reasons: 1. Voting yes is seen as being helpful and friendly, but voting no is seen as unhelpful. 2. It isn't clear if voting helps. They've made their points clear. 3. These people are thrown into this chaos only months into their existence. Should they be unfriendly to a bad idea? This is not something that many have had to deal with frequently before. None were likely a part of the Blu-Ray / HD-DVD fiasco, etc. 4. It is rude not to retract a plan that many have objections to. Should they compound it with their own rudeness? 5. With all the people related to Sun / Oracle or IBM, some think the fix is in. 6. Some think their official position means they should be quiet / diplomatic. The mistake is there could be a silent majority of objectors. The TDF community is big already. It is cheapest to vote no now. Anyway, I have my own plans so I wish you success in your good ones. Kind regards, -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
I was against this experiment since my first mail but I've reading and learning a number of important facts since. So I thought I would summarize the no vote reasons so I can disconnect and return to my own big tasks ;-) If you've made up your mind, plz delete as I don't want to waste any more of your time. I read a lot and gained respect for Apache the foundation and OO the brand. There is love people attach to that trademark and to Apache as well. Apache could offer shit on a stick and it would have downloads and people curious about how to contribute back. Many of us want all of these good ideas and energies to be channeled. The LibreOffice team is not a raging success yet and they've just climbed some big hills alone. A drastic change to the plan today costs merely 100 of thousands of dollars. In absence of that, given all I have read and that the no major alterations have been offered, this is my (unfinished) list for the arguments against: --- This is basically a code dump, not the set of 50(?) FTEs who know and have created / been maintaining this code. OpenOffice is now primarily a brand to be preserved. This brand is in jeopardy now. Copyleft is compelling to small LO contributors. Do you really want to write AL2 so that IBM can sell it? This AL2 is not within the spirit of the tradition of this codebase because it is invoking a proprietary clause. AL2 will make ongoing code sharing with LO impossible. This proposal is considered to have a practical license agreement, but grabbing code changes from LibreOffice is said to be impractical. This is not seen as a problem. The move from Java towards Python in LO will add more barriers. There is a lot to be done: polish, services, plugins, mobile, etc. The community of contributors to this podling is artificially inflated. Naive people will show up here because of the Apache brand and the OO brand. They will not understand what is going on. The OO brand was given up by Oracle primarily because of the success of LibreOffice. LO has just built everything you need. LO has just recruited many of the most passionate and interested volunteers and other unaffiliated third-parties. LibreOffice is a young community, easily confused and frightened. They barely know this name LibreOffice. Meanwhile LO needs and would love to have another 10-whatever people. The OpenOffice brand would be very valuable to TDF today. LibreOffice can maximize the value and carry it on best right now. They need all kinds of help. They are not turning down one contribution. The hardware / bandwidth costs are not very expensive. It is the human costs. It is not just a question of if you fail, but what is the damage in that failed experiment. There is also the opportunity cost. If this podling fails, it could hurt the value of the OpenOffice brand, LibreOffice, waste resources (these emails are just the start), hurt Apache's reputation, etc. Some think this could finally the GPL debate for this codebase. It has always had a proprietary extra clause. That is the clause that is being used to create this license. Forks are one of the biggest reasons why free software has struggled in places. People at IBM responsible for Notes / Symphony may get bad reviews for building on top of a dying fork and when internal customers complain the product isn't as good as what comes with Linux. These open source evangelists are supposed to have their finger on the pulse of the community, not their finger in the face of the community. I stole that from someone ;-) No major revisions have been proposed. A no vote on current idea is fail-fast and the potential for a better plan. LO see this as a danger. They received more cash donations since this announcement. It will only be a trickle of volunteers. If more show up, LibreOffice can recruit in bulk. Wise people I have consulted with in LibreOffice believe this will fail. Some are not even worried anymore, but I am less confident. Some believe the Apache foundation is being used to legitimize a poorly thought-out idea. I believe the result will be the same no matter the vote unless the plan is changed. Once you have decided to shoot your foot, meeting cannot achieve much. I know I'm leaving out some points but this took time already. I am an un-affiliated observer rooting for Linux on the desktop and Python everywhere. I have spent years surveying and writing about Linux so I've come to respect the Apache server very much. Any rude bits in my mails were directed at IBM ;-) I think the foundation has been caught in the cross-fire of the language and license battles. I sympathize for your struggles. There is also actual proprietary competitors to fight as well! Isn't that the most important battle? Even if this is born, and fails, the community will pick up the pieces. It has many times before. I believe the LO opinion of the plan is close to unanimous and strongly-felt. My feelings are more mixed. Perhaps this can help serve as impetus for the vote.
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP server. It is official: Keith is a troll. We always have. Do not feed. Sorry for anything off-topic, etc. It was my first / only day on this list. The situation is frustrating and I saw a lot of stuff I disagreed with or was amazed by. I believe I have made all of my points already. Regards, -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
OpenOffice LibreOffice
Hello all; I spent some time reading these email archives to get a better understanding of the issues. To me it seem obvious this effort should join with the LibreOffice community. Why open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of software to be made proprietary in the future makes no sense to me. I would think the job of an IBM evangelist would be to advocate copyleft, not to evangelize lax licenses using IBM's reputation. It is the little guys that get screwed by lax licenses. Convincing IBM to make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who is working on that? LibreOffice is a success, and way ahead of you guys. There is a lot of work to be done. You can find a productive role for anyone in LibreOffice. I predict and hope that this project gets no support from the community as you are wasting our time starting with these emails. Everyone who has a choice should join LibreOffice. It has a better license, and a community of good people, distros and companies. First people need to understand what they are missing. One little reminder: LibreOffice will be the official build for Linux, and will have the best support, so I don't even understand who you expect to get help from when few technical people will be using it. LibreOffice could use the work of the OO core developers / testers today. What is the status of them? They are the most important asset in this situation, not the evangelists / suits who seem on their way to screwing it up. I'm sure they would rather join LibreOffice. Python is a better language than Java. Sun screwed Java in addition to OpenOffice. The move from Java is another way LibreOffice is ahead. Java should be abandoned by the community, but that is mostly a side issue here. Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558 Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future, depending on how far you get ;-) I think people working in MS Office would laugh at these mails. Perhaps they would root for IBM / Apache to succeed and cause more chaos and confusion. I sometimes think Linux on the desktop is hopeless because there are too many people so clever they manage to ignore basic facts. -Keith http://keithcu.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:04 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM: Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558 Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future, depending on how far you get ;-) Please do check back in a year and see how we're doing. I'm sure your readers would benefit from what you'll be able to report at that point. -Rob Lots of bravado. Of course, that comes from being a suit and being able to get your way and order other people around. I don't trust your opinion on how successful you will be as you've already made wrong decisions and not had a great first week. As a writer, I can influence the outcome ;-) Anyway, the only thing that matters is the status of the remaining core OO developers. If we can get them working on LibreOffice, that would be very helpful. Others of you have Notes / Symphony, etc. to deliver. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with your general aptitude or social skill level. By all means, if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as the org exists. I don't represent LibreOffice so I don't have to be polite. I'm just going to make a few words and then leave and work on my own tasks. I'm a writer hawking books, so if you quote me, please link to my book. I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP server. I try to be polite / constructive, you should see what I delete. I want people to work together in the same codebases. Things go faster that way. Forking is expensive and damaging social engineering. LibreOffice is a great organization with great people and you would be foolish to not work with them and leverage what they've done. I'll work on quitting being juvenile if you work on quitting ignoring facts. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms. Instead they worked out terms with us. We aren't all that picky about new initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process to ferret out sustainable activity from those that aren't. It is great that Oracle gave up OO rather than sit on it. We should be grateful to Oracle for this gift. Note that LibreOffice deserves most of the credit for this opportunity. I wouldn't expect Oracle to give it to the TDF. Apache has IBM backing which looks more credible. I'm happy that there are a number of people who still care about the OOo brand that are willing to work here under our rules. For those that aren't, and are more interested in the LO brand, have an appropriate amount of fun. We'd still like you to collaborate with us even if it just means the collaboration is one-way- we're funny like that. If our code improves your project, all we ask is that you respect the license it came with. It isn't about the OOo brand or the LO brand. This is about the codebase, and getting as many people working in the same codebase as possible. That enforces division of labor. You can help fix each other's bugs if you share the same bug database. LibreOffice has already moved to GIT. It will get harder to share code as the trees diverge. You say you won't be the benefit of LibreOfice's work and yet I am amazed you don't care. Are you saying you don't want LibreOffice to relicense your Apache licensed work? Note of course you can only ask ;-) It seems a paradoxical thing to ask for, to create a permissive license, and then insist it stay permissive. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept voluntary contributions. Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that. What we're hoping for is to attract devs who work on LO to join our project as committers, so whatever contributions they'd like to offer can get folded back to us without a lot of fuss. As the trees diverge, it will get harder to give code to you both. What if some changes depend on other GPL code? Your insistence on Apache licensed work will make it hard for many people to contribute to you. I find it ironic that the Apache license is permissive, but the people don't want any free/libre code mixed with it. That is not permissive. As I said earlier, the hope is that LO will pull from us for the core bits, and almost immediately we'll have the bits stored in svn mirrored to our github acct to facilitate that. While I wouldn't recommend this any time soon, at some point the ASF may try to tie access to the OOo brand to the use of a substantial amount of our software, so as not to confuse the public about the nature of the use of the mark. LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of your software. Given that LibreOffice is what caused Oracle to give up their trademark, I would think you would offer it to them also. I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an apache.org list. Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that doesn't invalidate our license. There are treatments of this subject by FSF peeps on the net if you are interested (no, I'm not going to look them up here). I didn't want to argue about this minor point either, just point out that it seems paradoxical. If I got some interesting Apache-licensed code, the first thing I would do is put GPL at the top. Microsoft has created licenses that say that code can't be used in conjunction with copyleft. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote: It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ? Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on my laptop or server. http://projects.apache.org/indexes/language.html Apache is clearly useful to lots of other people, but by picking Java it has hurt its situation in the Linux community with people like me. You see, I've seen you and others mention forking is bad, blah blah, yet LibreOffice IS A FORK of OpenOffice. What a contradictory statement. What a huge one. LibreOffice was a useful fork. Sun / Oracle were screwing things up. Now that Oracle has given up OO, the fork can be undone. Git loves forking, LibreOffice uses Git. That isn't the social engineering I'm talking about. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails. I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, the larger point seems that the Linux kernel is a better type-O because it accepts all kinds of changes. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then there really is no point to further discussion. Joe Shafer wrote this: -- I don't feel the need to debate software licensing with a GPL fan on an apache.org list. Suffice it to say that I expect downstream projects to respect the license, and sublicense it if necessary in a way that doesn't invalidate our license. Seems like he is saying he doesn't want people to change the license of Apache software. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails. I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, the larger point seems that the Linux kernel is a better type-O because it accepts all kinds of changes. The statement was ASL is a universal donor, in the blood analogy a type O-. You are saying that it is best to be a universal recipient - in blood terms AB+. Not type O. I think it depends on who is the donor and who is the recipient in this analogy because there is code flowing in both directions, but my point here is that the Linux kernel situation is more pragmatic in that it works with code of multiple licenses. I just want you to think about sharing bug lists. Etc. LibreOffice has your latest code already integrated, I believe. Given LibreOffice's success, and the fact that it has just built everything you need, this has the potential to cause confusion and wasted efforts. You can do an infinite amount of proprietary or Apache software on top of LibreOffice. I think some should think about building Notes and Symphony on top LibreOffice. That is plenty of work and will provide big benefits. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html This will help you properly research the topic as well: http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html Regards, Dave The redistribution terms only have to be respected until I relicense the code. That can be done via grep. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must respect its terms. Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header off of it, and applying a different license, is a copyright violation. I have not seen a lawsuit over an Apache license, though I've only been watching for a few years. Is it possible? I believe I can sublicense it or something, with terms that make the whole thing proprietary. People can make Apache code proprietary somehow, right? That is the big benefit of it. And when I've done that, I don't have to worry about the old redistribution terms or any of the old terms anymore. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Fully disagree. I encourage you to read the terms. -Keith - Sam Ruby This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says: The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says: The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license. You are confusing copyright and software licensing. I think: Copyright is a bunch of laws and court cases. Licenses are copyright-related text that gets applied to software and other things. If modified versions of the software don't require the same license, then any terms and restrictions you bring up no longer apply because that is the old license you are now referring to. You can modify software that is under the Apache license and use it in a proprietary product but you have to do it in a way that complies with the license and copyright law. You can use also use software that is under the LGPL in a proprietary product. Yes, that is why Oracle can depend on Linux, Notes and Symphony can build on top of LibreOffice, etc. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice LibreOffice]
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: We are now 50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing. Let's remember please to not feed the trolls, and move on. I was only kidding about this being a promotional thing. I have made contributions to all of these codebases ;-) In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard. Did you know that OpenOffice is already behind LibreOffice when it comes to ODF support? It has to do with footnote markers. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice LibreOffice]
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard. Did you know that OpenOffice is already behind LibreOffice when it comes to ODF support? It has to do with footnote markers. Which is apropos of... ODF support is a big part of why these codebases matter. Will you need to create an ODF compatibility council between OpenOffice and LibreOffice? I'd like to see those matrices like you have for software licenses. Let's be clear, you have strong GPL opinions. There are many forums for that decades-old debate; this list not being one of them. Oracle made a choice. Therefore Sam or another iPMC member or I will shut down each thread that debates the merits of AL/GPL, these were already detailed much better elsewhere and don't bear repeating. I don't care about the license issue either. I have dropped it. I am concerned about the social engineering (costs) of forks and of duplicate teams doing the same thing. I have seen the Office codebases, and I know that if you guys work efficiently now, good things will happen soon. I expect that an Apache OOo project will have a great deal of respect for the TDF/LO community and results based on the past five days of very respectful discussion. If the converse happens, that's great too. None of this is particularly relevant to the question at hand; should the ASF accept a podling proposal to the incubator with an AL code grant from Oracle? If your comments don't bear on this question, please hold them for the dev@ list or take them elsewhere. I am concerned only with what this podling would do. If that discussion is premature, we can leave it till later. However, it seems like knowing what you will do will help you figure out if you should do it. -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
From Michael Meeks on Apache License
He wrote this yesterday and it describes in different words why the Apache license is not so pragmatic for LibreOffice. The problem is, that very much of our work is inter-dependent, and we want people to be able to work all over the code, cleaning, translating and fixing it. It would suck giant rocks (through a straw) to say: no copy-left lovers need think of working on X Y or Z big pieces of the code - since we want to license changes to these on to IBM (via Apache) :-) At least - I don't want to just push the division down into the code-base, excluding people from lots of it (and of course throwing away our changes to those pieces). http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/msg06351.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
