Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: Ketih, 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. They have been discussed. Even at this list. We have discussed to say no to OOo at the ASF. We have discussed collaborations. There were even some more exotic ideas on this proposal. The part about the ASF undertaking only a reference implementation for the ODF format was not discussed. This would probably make the Free Software Foundation (FSF) happy. The position of the FSF at http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice I have noticed many think no other plans are possible. This forces people to vote yes. Sorry, but how can you know? Did you speak with everybody? DId you get private messages from some folks asking you for help? Are you a psychologist and know about group dynamics? Now that you mention it; the voting started at time (7.02pm local time). Benson Margulies voted at 7.03pm. You voted at 7.05pm. Is the voting start time pre-announced? 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. ... 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. Come on. Are you serious? We are speaking of adults. You come off as patronizing. 4. It is rude not to retract a plan that many have objections to. Should they compound it with their own rudeness? It is how democracy usually works. You have X pro, Y contra, afterwards you have a decision. Usually some complain about it afterwards. The case here is that the proposed Apache OpenOffice.org plans to attract the greater OOo community, and this community is largely unaware of the voting that takes place in this incubator mailing list. I only found out I could vote from replies in the actual voting. ... The mistake is there could be a silent majority of objectors. Yes there could. A worm live in the apple. There is a silent majority against car driving. This does not lead to anywhere. Unlike other Apache projects, AOOo has the aspirations for a wide community project. Considering that any person who is part of the OOo/LO community is affected, I would expect a call to the community that explains what's going on and invite them to vote. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote: Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 11 Jun 2011, at 11:23, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote: The part about the ASF undertaking only a reference implementation for the ODF format was not discussed. Yes it was. In fact it was the suggestion that OO.o should be refactored so that components could be reused elsewhere that encouraged me to sign up as a mentor. Both TDF and proposers saw this as a potential area for collaboration. The proposal talks about what is essentially a full replication of what we already have with LibreOffice. Since Oracle was willing to transfer the OOo source code copyrights to the ASF, the ASF could have accepted those copyrights, extract the related code for the ODF reference implementation, and re-release the source code with a copyleft license. There is certainly no consensus on whether this is viable and the original proposers do not want to limit the scope of the project to just this aspect. However, there is a desire from some initial committees and some TDF representatives to explore this. As a mentor I aim to see if this refactoring, with the collaboration opportunities it presents, can be realised. I think you refer to overall OOo refactoring (which is indeed needed), rather than code that relates to the ODF format. This work you describe can very well start with LibreOffice now, or have started even six months ago, with git repositories ready to clone. The ASF undertaking this, it will probably be several months before we begin to see progress. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
Please cast your votes: [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation -1 (non-binding) This proposal is for the hosting of all OpenOffice.org services by the ASF, and mandates for items such as marketing, documentation and localisation which are not core competencies of the ASF. Moreover, the ASF has no other project like OOo that focuses on end-users. Furthermore, existing ASF developers have little or no prior exposure to the OOo codebase due to the licensing issue. It would make sense for the ASF to focus on an ODF reference implementation instead of undertaking the whole of OpenOffice.org, as the FSF recommends, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html I believe that the ASF will be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of diverse effort that is required, if this proposal passes. Any development effort should join LibreOffice and the TDF (The Document Foundation) which gained already the attention of the community. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Happy happy joy joy
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Guys, if we are going to argue over the mistakes of the pasts and the slights of the past, quite frankly, we aren't going to get very far. This is supposed to be a happy occasion; let's not bicker and argue about who-killed-who... :) If this is an attempt for reconciliation, it's somewhat poor ;-) And the last paragraph, quite ambiguous. You say 'bicker', which can be interpreted as a way to dissuade people from discussing. Do you feel people are bickering? The whole affair is a big issue, and what I detect is an attitude that it would better just not to discuss the touchy issues, as if they will go away. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:37 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: 06/05/2011 07:50 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.orgwrote: I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then try to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers have a vision for where they want to go, even though they may be starting from the same place. I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been waiting to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has been strong on long-term abstract vision (clearly more omniscient than me), but any time specifics of what ( how) is going to happen in the immediate future in terms of maintaining the important consumer end-user presence OpenOffice.org delivers, things get pretty fuzzy and hand-wavey. Perhaps you missed it in the thread on end-users. Here is a link: http://markmail.org/message/ge3jom3px5dviils IMHO, the growth in end user adoption will happen in the enterprise. That will require support mechanisms that are far beyond what LO or Apache can give. But it will be provided by a mix of consultancies based on free or libre versions of the code, as well as by commercial;, mixed-source versions built upon the Apache code. I suppose s/commercial/proprietary/g, as you can very well create a product based on LibreOffice, or any copyleft source code. A somewhat similar software (in terms of end-user usage) to LibreOffice is the Firefox browser. There is a difference that a browser is something you can easily get for free, however most users stick to what was already pre-installed. According to the StatCounter stats, http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200909-201106 Firefox is steadily at 30% global market share for the last few years. And Firefox did not have a significant marketing campaign. It was the users that helped each other and promoted the browser. In some countries, the users outdid themselves, with well over 75% of Internet users Indonesia using Firefox, http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ID-monthly-200909-201106 It is the users that helped Firefox, and it is the users that can lift LibreOffice. If a LibreOffice user needs support, they most probably will ask a friend, or access the online support forums. http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ has 40.000 members and is run by the community. http://www.oooforum.org/forum/ has 215.000 members and is run by the community. There is opportunity for the community to help support the end-users. Don't take for granted that Oracle is also giving away these two forums. If the users are not inspired by Apache OpenOffice to contribute their time for free, they will just dump Apache OpenOffice. In parallel to that, we'll continue doing the same thing that OOo did for the last 10 years, provide documentation, tutorials, FAQ's, user forums, etc., on http://OpenOffice.org. The intent is to keep that as the end-user portal. You should ask them first if they are happy with this. Oracle did not do a stellar job to inspire the end-users and contributors, and they ended up leaving. The 'OpenOffice.org' forums remain with the existing name until it is figured out what is going to happen with OOo. I'd be interesting in hearing if the TDF has something stronger to offer. Were you planning on providing 24x7 phone support? Visiting customers to do migrations? Provide 14 day guaranteed patch support? Provide onsite training? Of course not. Supporting the full range of end users requires an entire ecosystem of partners. I believe that the Apache 2.0 license facilitates growing that kind of ecosystem. We've seen this happen with many other Apache projects. It is up to the members of the community to get the skills and start providing support services. This is the essence of free and open-source software, and there are tremendous growth opportunities for LibreOffice. IBM can also provide such services. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@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. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:39 PM, 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. Double fault. I suppose you rather wanted to say “TDF actually engaged [with Oracle] [but the negotiations] failed to [to reach an agreement]”. My personal interpretation: 1. Oracle wanted to give away OpenOffice.org, even transfer the copyrights. 2. The TDF is really happy to receive OpenOffice.org, as a copyleft project (LGPLv3+MPLv2). 3. [lots of cheap speculation, 1p each] There might be an agreement between IBM and Oracle/Sun for access to the OOo source code for the proprietary Lotus Symphony, so Oracle had to oblige to IBM and go to the Apache Foundation. Or, less interestingly, ODF/OOo is a huge investment inside IBM that they would rather not relinquish control and ability to create proprietary products. 4. A lot of people unhappy. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse me for interrupting ... On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/ nor http://www.openoffice.org/license.html are mentioning the MPL. What's right? I believe that during the talks between Robert and LibreOffice, LibreOffice asked to have the freed OpenOffice relicensed to LGPLv3/MPL, so that the wrongs are fixed and everyone is happy. But Robert got confused and says above that LibreOffice is already licensed under the LGPLv3/MPL. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything. You are free to disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say, No thanks without suggesting that it is immoral for anyone else, including your own members, to say Yes please. Let's not argue for freedom by denying it to others. Just a reminder: that anyone's particular goals, priorities or methods are moot: What is important is the *project's* goals, priorities and methods, and they are not determined by *any* external 3rd party. Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This is about working together. This is about building a developer and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip. If people do not understand that, they need to. And if they can't agree with that then, quite frankly, they have no business being here. The information presented so far remind me of a bad open-source advocate that creates a web forum in 60 minutes with lots of sections and subsections, and invites everyone to come in and contribute, on an empty forum. The result is that the forum remains empty. OpenOffice is huge, and you need a community to support your efforts. Without the LibreOffice community, you need to build your own. And till now, I see no efforts to build a new community. I see no inspiration either to get people to contribute to Apache OpenOffice. There should be a single project, with a copyleft license, that everyone joins and contributes. OpenOffice is as big, complex and important as the Linux kernel. GPL worked great to keep the Linux kernel going. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
