Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should and shouldn't devote that time and energy to? I am just a volunteer who has seen the ASF struggle with growth-related issues for several years now. I think it is a fair question to ask whether we should think about different / more selective criteria for entrance to the incubator. Sorry if asking that question offends you. To clarify this, because we have so many guests and observers trying to figure out the ASF... Sufficient numbers of board members, ASF members and even incubator team members have signed up as mentors. But more to the point, the central premise of the ASF is to facilitate developers to scratch their own itch. If improving particular processes, code or documentation interests you, by all means, do it. If some part of the code holds no interest to you, let someone else. And if you come to the ASF (even as a user) complaining about a particular piece of code, bring a patch, not a complaint, if you expect it to be fixed. The mentor list suggests to me that there are enough volunteers for this particular itch to accept it for graduation. Phil, you are not responsible and should not feel responsible to follow the activities of this project if it truly isn't your itch. To address your concern, we should raise this issue to the board and set a policy of accepting no further projects, if your opinion is shared by the rest of the incubator PMC. That concern need not be applied on a project-by-project basis (except to ensure there are sufficient number of interested mentors). - 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 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd, was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior to the creation of the Apache Software Foundation*? There is a difference between commercial entities using code vs manipulating communities. Clearly we disagree on this and what the ASF is for. Fine. I hope there is room for both of our views. I'm totally in agreement with Phil. There is a BIG difference in the two positions and I for one would not support ASF being exploited. ASF products being used for commercial success is absolutely superb. ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should and shouldn't devote that time and energy to? Um Bill you really should cool it a bit .. why are you getting so hot about it? Phil too is a long standing member of the ASF and has every right to comment on this! I am just a volunteer who has seen the ASF struggle with growth-related issues for several years now. I think it is a fair question to ask whether we should think about different / more selective criteria for entrance to the incubator. Sorry if asking that question offends you. +1. Those (esp. members) who find that question offensive need to take a cold shower. Sanjiva. -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, Director Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/ Founder, Chairman CEO; WSO2; http://wso2.com/ Founder Director; Thinkcube Systems; http://www.thinkcube.com/ Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd, was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior to the creation of the Apache Software Foundation*? There is a difference between commercial entities using code vs manipulating communities. Clearly we disagree on this and what the ASF is for. Fine. I hope there is room for both of our views. I'm totally in agreement with Phil. There is a BIG difference in the two positions and I for one would not support ASF being exploited. ASF products being used for commercial success is absolutely superb. Let's clarify exploitation. This is a code dump (exploitative) with another group (IBM folks + OOo folks) to accept responsibility for it (counter-exploitative). No exceptions are made to our process, changes to the language of the the grant letter were not accepted. The proposers submit their idea to the incubator, just as all others must submit their ideas for the incubator to consider, vote upon, mentor and guide, and hopefully, graduate to a TLP. No exceptions. The code is not available to developers under a permissive license, this offer is to incubate the code under a permissive license. It has willing committers, and mentors. So what I'm asking is, what is the exploitation? That is a charged allegation. I initially thought the same until I read all of the background on the history and current composition of OOo consumers. ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should and shouldn't devote that time and energy to? Um Bill you really should cool it a bit .. why are you getting so hot about it? Phil too is a long standing member of the ASF and has every right to comment on this! Yes, if he will clarify what is exploitative, otherwise the post is FUD. To be clear; OOo was not part of LO, although it was consumed by LO. OOo has players which use the code differently and under more flexible license than LO has. If Oracle incorporated OOo as a 501(c) and granted OOo an AL to all of the code and divested itself of the OOo foundation, would that have been exploitative? If not, then where is the exploitation of the ASF facing the same prospects as an independent OOo organization? I am just a volunteer who has seen the ASF struggle with growth-related issues for several years now. I think it is a fair question to ask whether we should think about different / more selective criteria for entrance to the incubator. Sorry if asking that question offends you. +1. Those (esp. members) who find that question offensive need to take a cold shower. Or rather, the incubator needs to evaluate current proposals on its current methodology, and (in a quiet time between proposals) generate more specific criteria for incubation, independent of any particular proposal. I just find it rude to change the rules of the game during the match. - 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 6/5/11 11:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should and shouldn't devote that time and energy to? I am just a volunteer who has seen the ASF struggle with growth-related issues for several years now. I think it is a fair question to ask whether we should think about different / more selective criteria for entrance to the incubator. Sorry if asking that question offends you. To clarify this, because we have so many guests and observers trying to figure out the ASF... Sufficient numbers of board members, ASF members and even incubator team members have signed up as mentors. But more to the point, the central premise of the ASF is to facilitate developers to scratch their own itch. If improving particular processes, code or documentation interests you, by all means, do it. If some part of the code holds no interest to you, let someone else. And if you come to the ASF (even as a user) complaining about a particular piece of code, bring a patch, not a complaint, if you expect it to be fixed. The mentor list suggests to me that there are enough volunteers for this particular itch to accept it for graduation. Phil, you are not responsible and should not feel responsible to follow the activities of this project if it truly isn't your itch. Sorry, Bill, but as an ASF member I am in fact responsible for everything that the foundation does, including what we decide to accept into the Incubator. Of course, I am just one member, and we make these decisions by consensus. If the consensus is to accept this podling, I will welcome the project and accept the responsibility that we all will share having made that decision. To address your concern, we should raise this issue to the board and set a policy of accepting no further projects, if your opinion is shared by the rest of the incubator PMC. I did not suggest that we stop accepting projects. Read the post. I suggested that we try to come up with some principles governing what we accept into the incubator. That concern need not be applied on a project-by-project basis (except to ensure there are sufficient number of interested mentors). Whatever principles we end up agreeing on should be applied to all candidate podlings. If just having enough mentors willing to sign up were sufficient, there would be no need for a vote of the IPMC. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, Le 6 juin 11 à 02:28, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit : Because Oracle and TDF, in confidential negotiations, could not come to an agreement. Also that's one more reason why OpenOffice.org should be hosted by the Apache Foundation. For the memory, LibreOffice and TDF have been created without the community being informed. Only several people were aware. More precisely, as OpenOffice.org Project Lead, I was not even informed such thing was happening : we discovered everything defined, and the roles distributed. No discussion : follow us, or die. And I think that's all that need be said on the matter. Maybe, but starting now, I think everything _must_ be transparent. Regards, Eric Bachard -- qɔᴉɹə Education Project: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
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 Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd, was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior to the creation of the Apache Software Foundation*? There is a difference between commercial entities using code vs manipulating communities. Clearly we disagree on this and what the ASF is for. Fine. I hope there is room for both of our views. I'm totally in agreement with Phil. There is a BIG difference in the two positions and I for one would not support ASF being exploited. ASF products being used for commercial success is absolutely superb. Let's clarify exploitation. This is a code dump (exploitative) with another group (IBM folks + OOo folks) to accept responsibility for it (counter-exploitative). No exceptions are made to our process, changes to the language of the the grant letter were not accepted. The proposers submit their idea to the incubator, just as all others must submit their ideas for the incubator to consider, vote upon, mentor and guide, and hopefully, graduate to a TLP. No exceptions. The code is not available to developers under a permissive license, this offer is to incubate the code under a permissive license. It has willing committers, and mentors. So what I'm asking is, what is the exploitation? That is a charged allegation. I initially thought the same until I read all of the background on the history and current composition of OOo consumers. ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should and shouldn't devote that time and energy to? Um Bill you really should cool it a bit .. why are you getting so hot about it? Phil too is a long standing member of the ASF and has every right to comment on this! Yes, if he will clarify what is exploitative, otherwise the post is FUD. To be clear; OOo was not part of LO, although it was consumed by LO. OOo has players which use the code differently and under more flexible license than LO has. If Oracle incorporated OOo as a 501(c) and granted OOo an AL to all of the code and divested itself of the OOo foundation, would that have been exploitative? If not, then where is the exploitation of the ASF facing the same prospects as an independent OOo organization? I am just a volunteer who has seen the ASF struggle with growth-related issues for several years now. I think it is a fair question to ask whether we should think about different / more selective criteria for entrance to the incubator. Sorry if asking that question offends you. +1. Those (esp. members) who find that question offensive need to take a cold shower. Or rather, the incubator needs to evaluate current proposals on its current methodology, and (in a quiet time between proposals) generate more specific criteria for incubation, independent of any particular proposal. I just find it rude to change the rules of the game during the match. That is a fair point and I will shut up about this now, other than to answer your question about exploitation that is germane to this proposal. One way to look at this proposal is to see it as an attempt to use the ASF brand and infrastructure to fork a community. That is exploitative. Other threads have argued both sides of this fully. People can come to their own conclusions. My point was that we can't really assess this without getting clearer on what we mean by exploitation and how much of it we are willing to tolerate. Again, read the post carefully and you will understand my intent. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 6/5/11 11:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should and shouldn't devote that time and energy to? I am just a volunteer who has seen the ASF struggle with growth-related issues for several years now. I think it is a fair question to ask whether we should think about different / more selective criteria for entrance to the incubator. Sorry if asking that question offends you. To clarify this, because we have so many guests and observers trying to figure out the ASF... Sufficient numbers of board members, ASF members and even incubator team members have signed up as mentors. But more to the point, the central premise of the ASF is to facilitate developers to scratch their own itch. If improving particular processes, code or documentation interests you, by all means, do it. If some part of the code holds no interest to you, let someone else. And if you come to the ASF (even as a user) complaining about a particular piece of code, bring a patch, not a complaint, if you expect it to be fixed. The mentor list suggests to me that there are enough volunteers for this particular itch to accept it for graduation. Phil, you are not responsible and should not feel responsible to follow the activities of this project if it truly isn't your itch. Sorry, Bill, but as an ASF member I am in fact responsible for everything that the foundation does, including what we decide to accept into the Incubator. Of course, I am just one member, and we make these decisions by consensus. If the consensus is to accept this podling, I will welcome the project and accept the responsibility that we all will share having made that decision. Phil, I understand what your concern is but I just don't see a way to prevent exploitation other than what we already do. If you look at the Flume proposal made just a couple of days prior to this you will notice that most of the initial committers have the same employer. Is this exploitation? I don't think so. You probably don't either since you made no comment to that effect. Would it be exploitation if IBM convinced Oracle to propose it here and then provided no developers to work on the project but just used the source? Probably, but thousands of companies do that with all of our software. I just don't see how you can prevent what you are trying to without violating the spirit of what Apache is here for. To address your concern, we should raise this issue to the board and set a policy of accepting no further projects, if your opinion is shared by the rest of the incubator PMC. I did not suggest that we stop accepting projects. Read the post. I suggested that we try to come up with some principles governing what we accept into the incubator. If you can come up with some I'd happily discuss them with you. I don't think holding this proposal hostage to that is fair primarily because I don't have a lot of confidence the principals would exclude this project from entering. If you've read my previous posts you will see the principals I use when I vote. That concern need not be applied on a project-by-project basis (except to ensure there are sufficient number of interested mentors). Whatever principles we end up agreeing on should be applied to all candidate podlings. If just having enough mentors willing to sign up were sufficient, there would be no need for a vote of the IPMC. I agree with that and that is precisely what I do except that they are my own not a standard set. Apparently, I just don't use the same criteria you do. Frankly, that is OK by me. Ralph - 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?
Christian Lippka schreef: Am 06.06.2011 00:28, schrieb Simon Brouwer: Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef: Hi Ralph, Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers: On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the libreoffice lists at this point. What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. Not a blocker for starting incubation. IOW we don't ask for this level of detail from other podlings. It might be a blocker for my vote. You are, of course, free to vote differently. This is a much larger project than usually enters the incubator. I'm worried that if the project has too much of this kind of work to deal with it will kill the community. If I understand you correctly, your question is if the supplied set of source files is missing something to make this a working project. As stated earlier, the list of source files provided look like a 1:1 copy from the mercurial repository available at OpenOffice.org. I was looking at that, but I have the impression that the source code for a number of external projects is not present in the mercurial checkout and still has to be retrieved as part of the building process. There are makefiles, patches etc., but no source code worth mentioning, in subdirectories stlport, openssl, hunspell, libxslt... It might be all of these: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries/ Yes and no. Usually external project would be build in modules like stlport, openssl etc. The archives with the sources would be in the above url. But what is missing are the patches to those external source archives. OK, so these patches should be added to the software grant, hardly a problem I should think. But a practical matter is whether ASF can provide a similar repository of external project archives, which much simplifies the build process, or is the policy not to distribute any source under non-ASL licenses strictly maintained? -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Or rather, the incubator needs to evaluate current proposals on its current methodology, and (in a quiet time between proposals) generate more specific criteria for incubation, independent of any particular proposal. I just find it rude to change the rules of the game during the match. That is a fair point and I will shut up about this now, I don't think you should. Sometimes the rules of a game work until something very extraordinary happens. Who are we, if we could not change our own rules. The OpenOffice proposal is very different to others in some kind. Maybe we need to think twice on several aspects. At least, your arguments made me think. I have no conclusion so far, I am still thinking. The OOo proposal does heat emotions. OOo is the base at which back a new foundation has grown. In some kind it has been expressed that - if we accept to add this podling - we are suddenly playing the game Oracle has started. After all Oracle is responsible for all the noise around. We have left the JCP b/c they were not nice to us, now we are taking over a something - which was a reason for lots of people to found the TDF. After some post read here, I would see that this debatte is not only the process podling yes/no. It is not only that some feelings on code level are hurt. It is more that Oracle has somehow lost a battle, and we are taking caring on the rest and try safe the trademark. If we can manage it, Oracle would look good - they have saved OOo, users say. And the TDF are looking a bit more like the nasty rebels, since they do not follow. So this is my impression I got in the past hours of the discussion. I for sure have not insight into the TDF community and for sure of no idea what Oracle really thinks. I just tried to understand the concerns Phil et al have and from this political standpoint, he is right. Should the incubator or even the board step in if such politics is coming into game? This is the question Phil wants to be answered, and I think we should answer it. (Phil, please correct me if I misinterpreted something) that being said - can OOo really be treated like each other podling? I start to feel it might not be the case. Can we change the rules while the game? Yes, we can. I would be very dissappointed if we would obey blindly to our own rules just because they are there. I want to think each time about them when I need them. If they don't fit anymore, I want to throw them away, if possible. other than to answer your question about exploitation that is germane to this proposal. One way to look at this proposal is to see it as an attempt to use the ASF brand and infrastructure to fork a community. That is exploitative. My feeling says, I start to understand you. Who are we to disband a community (to the liking of Oracle) vs. We need an Office suite under our license Other threads have argued both sides of this fully. People can come to their own conclusions. My point was that we can't really assess this without getting clearer on what we mean by exploitation and how much of it we are willing to tolerate. Again, read the post carefully and you will understand my intent. I am not sure if I should support you intension or not. But this is one of the questions I was looking for before my thread got hijacked. I would love to have a clear statement in this very special (= political) case. It's nothing else then the JCP discussion. Thanks Phil - it is not easy to speak about such a thing when you have strong arguments against you Christian Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- http://www.grobmeier.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote on 2011-06-06 02.28: Because Oracle and TDF, in confidential negotiations, could not come to an agreement. And I think that's all that need be said on the matter. well, I guess it has been mentioned on this list before, but let me state it this way: What TDF would have appreciated since its announcement, even what the wider community would have appreciated to have been given by Oracle even before TDF was announced, is *very* similar to what Apache seems to have been granted. I cannot see any real difference to the community demands the last years, and I wonder why things seemed to be impossible for the community and TDF, and seem to be possible for ASF. I do not blame ASF for anything, but, similar to what I read yesterday about your picture of our legal status, I call everyone to be cautious with rumors. Because they are simply that: Rumors. Seems like a lot of fuzz is flowing around, at the expense of the truth. Sticking to the facts instead of listening to story-tellers is sometimes helpful. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 02.37: And I remind you of this response I gave you before: http://markmail.org/message/wwoxum4tuvdg5q3p I guess we're running in circles. However, I have made my points and hopefully responded to some rumors spreading (like: TDF is no choice as legal entity; TDF's demands are way too high). I believe I described the range of areas that were important to us, and clearly it was more than the license. To elaborate further could be seen as me denigrating TDF/LO, and I think that would be toxic to further collaborations, collaborations I look forward to. To me, it simply looks like TDF was simply not wanted, otherwise I guess anyone from IBM could have joined our calls, mailing lists and the like much earlier. Other members of this (general@incubator) list also seem to share similar feelings with your attitude towards TDF, but - well, I guess I made my points clear. Who recognizes them and who ignores them is, sadly, out of my scope. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi Sam, Sam Ruby wrote on 2011-06-06 02.02: I can tell you that those decisions are made above Rob's and my pay grades. Way above. maybe - looking behind corporate walls, so to say, is sometimes a bit complicated. I don't personally blame anyone for this, but reading some rumors or comments, especially towards TDF and the people driving it, sometimes even feels, well, at least a bit strange. My personal summary for now is that I tried to clarify some fuzz going around, and to state why I think that setting up a parallel project does not make any sense at all, but rather leads to community splitting and market irritation, especially given that the granted source code seems to be lacking important parts, and there is no real idea on how to provide continuity for users (e.g. releasing OOo 3.4.0). All of this will do *much* harm, IMHO even more than the benefit of having the license you favor. Creative solutions for working on the licensing issue surely exist, and Simon mentioned one of them. Setting up things in parallel is not necessarily required from my POV. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
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 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 6/6/2011 4:55 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: that being said - can OOo really be treated like each other podling? I start to feel it might not be the case. Can we change the rules while the game? Yes, we can. I would be very dissappointed if we would obey blindly to our own rules just because they are there. I want to think each time about them when I need them. If they don't fit anymore, I want to throw them away, if possible. To the extent that OOo presents the incubator with something the ASF has not faced, you are correct... these things we have no standards yet to measure whether a podling should be accepted. To the extent that it is the same, or similar, as many other incubator podlings, it should be allowed to proceed without changing those standards. The question is, in which ways is OOo unique to the ASF? We've had some good discussions here on these points. - 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 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: On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd, was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior to the creation of the Apache Software Foundation*? There is a difference between commercial entities using code vs manipulating communities. Clearly we disagree on this and what the ASF is for. Fine. I hope there is room for both of our views. I'm totally in agreement with Phil. There is a BIG difference in the two positions and I for one would not support ASF being exploited. ASF products being used for commercial success is absolutely superb. Let's clarify exploitation. This is a code dump (exploitative) with another group (IBM folks + OOo folks) to accept responsibility for it (counter-exploitative). No exceptions are made to our process, changes to the language of the the grant letter were not accepted. The proposers submit their idea to the incubator, just as all others must submit their ideas for the incubator to consider, vote upon, mentor and guide, and hopefully, graduate to a TLP. No exceptions. The code is not available to developers under a permissive license, this offer is to incubate the code under a permissive license. It has willing committers, and mentors. So what I'm asking is, what is the exploitation? That is a charged allegation. I initially thought the same until I read all of the background on the history and current composition of OOo consumers. ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should and shouldn't devote that time and energy to? Um Bill you really should cool it a bit .. why are you getting so hot about it? Phil too is a long standing member of the ASF and has every right to comment on this! Yes, if he will clarify what is exploitative, otherwise the post is FUD. To be clear; OOo was not part of LO, although it was consumed by LO. OOo has players which use the code differently and under more flexible license than LO has. If Oracle incorporated OOo as a 501(c) and granted OOo an AL to all of the code and divested itself of the OOo foundation, would that have been exploitative? If not, then where is the exploitation of the ASF facing the same prospects as an independent OOo organization? I am just a volunteer who has seen the ASF struggle with growth-related issues for several years now. I think it is a fair question to ask whether we should think about different / more selective criteria for entrance to the incubator. Sorry if asking that question offends you. +1. Those (esp. members) who find that question offensive need to take a cold shower. Or rather, the incubator needs to evaluate current proposals on its current methodology, and (in a quiet time between proposals) generate more specific criteria for incubation, independent of any particular proposal. I just find it rude to change the rules of the game during the match. That is a fair point and I will shut up about this now, other than to answer your question about exploitation that is germane to this proposal. One way to look at this proposal is to see it as an attempt to use the ASF brand and infrastructure to fork a community. That is exploitative. 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. Further, if it really is true that Oracle/IBM were in talks with TDF but could not come to agreement, then how is it even remotely possible to conclude that this proposal is an attempt to fork a community? Give me a break. - richard Other threads have argued both sides of this fully. People can come to their own conclusions. My point was that we can't really assess this without getting clearer on what we mean by exploitation and how much of it we are willing to tolerate. Again, read the post carefully and you will understand my intent. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, Richard S. Hall wrote on 2011-06-06 16.19: However, it seems like we have lost sight of the fact that TDF split the community from OOo. Sure, Oracle is the perceived villain and TDF the perceived good guy, but it doesn't change the fact that OOo created the community in the first place. wrong perception. If a vast majority of the community steps away, because the main sponsor refuses to talk to them, amongst these community members *all* community council members who do not work for the main sponsor, plus nearly all other officials (i.e. leads or co-leads) from the community, you may allow the question who split and who is to blame. If you don't believe that, feel free to have a look into the mailing list archives. And if the people in charge respected the community that much as you seem to suggest, then I wonder why the Apache proposal has not been discussed with this community in the first place. So please stop spreading FUD like this. It won't help the further discussion here at all and just confirms the perception many of us had back in September: Some people simply do not have the slightest clue about communities. Or they *do* want to be blind. As said in my first mail: Do not look into the past. Look into the future. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi Richard, * 2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall he...@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! Under these conditions, I'll change my entry in the wiki. Best regards Manfred, ex german Co-Lead OOo - 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 Jun 6, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: Hi Richard, * 2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall he...@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! Under these conditions, I'll change my entry in the wiki. Manfred, I wouldn't be so hasty. There are lots of opinions around here and we all need a bit of a thick skin. You shouldn't take what any one member says as the truth. Ralph - 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 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.comwrote: [...] 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. 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. Under these conditions, I'll change my entry in the wiki. That's your call. I'm not trying to be offensive. I was just responding to someone else's statement of fact with my own. Don't let it bother you that people see things differently. - richard Best regards Manfred, ex german Co-Lead OOo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: To the extent that OOo presents the incubator with something the ASF has not faced, you are correct... these things we have no standards yet to measure whether a podling should be accepted. To the extent that it is the same, or similar, as many other incubator podlings, it should be allowed to proceed without changing those standards. The question is, in which ways is OOo unique to the ASF? We've had some good discussions here on these points. Let me summarize what I do see as unique points: - Code duplication: We frequently had projects that duplicated another projects scope, or whatever you name it. But we never before had a case, where there is an existing open source project with almost identical source code. - Community overlap: Most likely as a consequence of the previous point, we never before had a case, where there is an external, and, to the best of my knowledge, working community that is so interested in the proposed project while at the same time wishing not to join. That in common with the code duplication means that all we can really do better is the choice of license. That may be sufficient for most, but not all of us. - Audience: Apache audience has traditionally been system admins, developers, and so on. As a consequence, Apache projects are typically having a community of some hundred or thousand users. Those hundreds or thousands are typically aware of what Apache can and cannot do. This project aims to be used by millions. We must realistically expect that a lot of additions and modifications must be made for this project in terms of infrastructure, policies, and structures. Users will be more helpless and unaware as they usually are. What worked for all and every existing Apache project will most likely not work for this one. - Concentration on binaries: Apache projects are usually all about source code. For example, Apache httpd is still distributing binaries for Windows and Netware (!) only. For this project, a release will possibly consist of a single tar ball plus several hundred or even thousand binaries: A myriad of localized variants, several platforms (at least Windows 32/64, Mac) are already for sure, but it is easy to imagine additional variants. Such releases can no longer be controlled in the traditional way. Which PMC member would really bother to inspect some hundred files when asked for a positive vote? - Efforts overlap: Again, as a consequence of the points, we never before had a case, where there is an external organization that will basically do just the same stuff: Build scripts for binaries, running a build infrastructure, reapply our patches, and so on. That means a real lot of duplicated efforts with no additional value. 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
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/6/11 10:33, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, Richard S. Hall wrote on 2011-06-06 16.19: However, it seems like we have lost sight of the fact that TDF split the community from OOo. Sure, Oracle is the perceived villain and TDF the perceived good guy, but it doesn't change the fact that OOo created the community in the first place. wrong perception. If a vast majority of the community steps away, because the main sponsor refuses to talk to them, amongst these community members *all* community council members who do not work for the main sponsor, plus nearly all other officials (i.e. leads or co-leads) from the community, you may allow the question who split and who is to blame. If you don't believe that, feel free to have a look into the mailing list archives. And if the people in charge respected the community that much as you seem to suggest, then I wonder why the Apache proposal has not been discussed with this community in the first place. I'm not sure what you mean. Did you want Oracle/IBM to discuss the Apache proposal with TDF before submitting it to Apache? Because otherwise, this is how proposals work, they get submitted and we discuss them, which is what we are doing. So please stop spreading FUD like this. It won't help the further discussion here at all and just confirms the perception many of us had back in September: Some people simply do not have the slightest clue about communities. Or they *do* want to be blind. Again, it was reported on this list that the parties could not come to terms, is this true or not? If so, then it is clear that there isn't a single community, because otherwise terms would have been reached. So, where is the FUD? - richard As said in my first mail: Do not look into the past. Look into the future. Florian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi Ralph, 2011/6/6 Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com: On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: [...] Under these conditions, I'll change my entry in the wiki. done. Manfred, I wouldn't be so hasty. There are lots of opinions around here and we all need a bit of a thick skin. You shouldn't take what any one member says as the truth. Richard's second mail, arrived a second ago, showed, that he knows, what he is talking about. I need a rest now. ;-) Manfred - 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?
- Original Message From: Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 11:04:31 AM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? - Concentration on binaries: Apache projects are usually all about source code. For example, Apache httpd is still distributing binaries for Windows and Netware (!) only. For this project, a release will possibly consist of a single tar ball plus several hundred or even thousand binaries: A myriad of localized variants, several platforms (at least Windows 32/64, Mac) are already for sure, but it is easy to imagine additional variants. Such releases can no longer be controlled in the traditional way. Which PMC member would really bother to inspect some hundred files when asked for a positive vote? Technically our votes only cover the source code- distribution of binaries is a nice thing to do, but not required (yes some people disagree with what I'm saying here). As a practical matter tho, I don't know how our mirror operators will feel about dropping a thousand sizeable artifacts onto their systems without any notice from us, so at the very least we may need to determine our ability to serve OOo binaries directly from our mirrors by polling the operators. - 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 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. - richard Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
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?
Hi Simos, *, 2011/6/6 Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com: 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 [...] 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. sorry, I have to take the _developer's defense_. It is self-evident that salaried developers are not allowed to communicate on mailinglists what they are _thinking_ what her employer is thinking about the project. The more, the community of volunteers expect that a new owner (BTW: April 2009) expresses his ideas about the future of product. cheers Manfred - 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 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. 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, -g - 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 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: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 12:08 -0400, Greg Stein 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. Well, for whatever it is worth - +1 Thanks, Drew Jensen - 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: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:37, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote: 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. How about we drop these lines of discussion, and simply follow Ross' advice and focus on what is needed by the Incubator PMC to accept this proposal? Cheers, -g - 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 6/6/11 13:50, Greg Stein wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:37, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Richard S. Hallhe...@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. How about we drop these lines of discussion, and simply follow Ross' advice and focus on what is needed by the Incubator PMC to accept this proposal? While I agree that a lot of this discussion is pointless, I guess it is just difficult to know where to precisely draw the line since my original response was to Phil Steitz (who is on the IPMC), where he at least implied if not directly stated that this proposal was exploitative and that was potential grounds for rejecting it. The difficulty in discussing this is because there are so many emotional minefields (and probably rightly so) for those involved so it is easy for some people to assume the worst in what gets said/written. For me, I have no emotion invested in this at all. I'm just a user of OOo since 2000 and a guy who likes the Apache license. - richard - 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 14:17, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote: On 6/6/11 13:50, Greg Stein wrote: ... How about we drop these lines of discussion, and simply follow Ross' advice and focus on what is needed by the Incubator PMC to accept this proposal? While I agree that a lot of this discussion is pointless, I guess it is just difficult to know where to precisely draw the line since my original response was to Phil Steitz (who is on the IPMC), where he at least implied if not directly stated that this proposal was exploitative and that was potential grounds for rejecting it. The difficulty in discussing this is because there are so many emotional minefields (and probably rightly so) for those involved so it is easy for some people to assume the worst in what gets said/written. For me, I have no emotion invested in this at all. I'm just a user of OOo since 2000 and a guy who likes the Apache license. Agreed. Personally, I use OOo sparingly, as I prefer Google Docs. My interest is largely spurred by the attraction of being able to apply ALv2 to this awesome piece of software. I believe that will be a *huge* enabler for the software world. It is vanishingly rare to have such a situation. Epic might be a good word :-) ... and who *doesn't* want to be part of something like that? Cheers, -g - 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 6/6/11 14:26, Greg Stein wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:17, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote: On 6/6/11 13:50, Greg Stein wrote: ... How about we drop these lines of discussion, and simply follow Ross' advice and focus on what is needed by the Incubator PMC to accept this proposal? While I agree that a lot of this discussion is pointless, I guess it is just difficult to know where to precisely draw the line since my original response was to Phil Steitz (who is on the IPMC), where he at least implied if not directly stated that this proposal was exploitative and that was potential grounds for rejecting it. The difficulty in discussing this is because there are so many emotional minefields (and probably rightly so) for those involved so it is easy for some people to assume the worst in what gets said/written. For me, I have no emotion invested in this at all. I'm just a user of OOo since 2000 and a guy who likes the Apache license. Agreed. Personally, I use OOo sparingly, as I prefer Google Docs. My interest is largely spurred by the attraction of being able to apply ALv2 to this awesome piece of software. I believe that will be a *huge* enabler for the software world. It is vanishingly rare to have such a situation. Epic might be a good word :-) ... and who *doesn't* want to be part of something like that? I couldn't have said it better myself... :-) - richard Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: Again are we able to vote on the podling? If no, please specifiy why? Not just yet. I don't want anyone to feel that we rushed this. It has been less than four days. A number of threads are still active You are correct, that they don't need to be fully resolved for acceptance, but I gather that a number of people would like to have a greater understanding of the general approach before agreeing. And many gather an understanding of such by exploring specifics. I will also note that a number of positions are evolving. I'd encourage you to compare: http://s.apache.org/lY With the following: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06534.html http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06533.html http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06529.html If that progress can be made in less than 24 hours, imagine what the next 24, 48, or even 72 hours will bring. My expectation is that the right time to hold a vote will be by the end of the week (Greg previously expressed a similar thought), however if there is a good reason for this to spill over into early next week I would be fine with that too. Cheers, Christian - Sam Ruby - 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?
Not just yet. I don't want anyone to feel that we rushed this. Oh, i didn't want to rush If that progress can be made in less than 24 hours, imagine what the next 24, 48, or even 72 hours will bring. Compared and good :-) My expectation is that the right time to hold a vote will be by the end of the week (Greg previously expressed a similar thought), however if there is a good reason for this to spill over into early next week I would be fine with that too. This is fine for me. But pragmatic as I am, I wanted to know about the key blockers if there are still any from incubator view. Currently discussion is focussing on convincing people why it is good. I think more on: is the proposal valid and good or are there unclear/incomplete items Thanks for your long response Christian - 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 Jun 5, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. 2. The amount of work that will be required to rework dependencies. 3. Whether the number of initial committers will be sufficient to start the project (this is probably going to be very subjective). 4. Whether there are enough mentors who have the time to devote to this. Since this is a very large undertaking I'd appreciate a bit more than just their name on the wiki but perhaps an actual estimate of how much time they have to devote to the project. Well, now maybe I don't care so much about number 4. There are now 7 mentors listed in the proposal. Ralph - 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?
- Original Message From: Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 11:43:47 AM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Not just yet. I don't want anyone to feel that we rushed this. Oh, i didn't want to rush If that progress can be made in less than 24 hours, imagine what the next 24, 48, or even 72 hours will bring. Compared and good :-) My expectation is that the right time to hold a vote will be by the end of the week (Greg previously expressed a similar thought), however if there is a good reason for this to spill over into early next week I would be fine with that too. This is fine for me. But pragmatic as I am, I wanted to know about the key blockers if there are still any from incubator view. Currently discussion is focussing on convincing people why it is good. I think more on: is the proposal valid and good or are there unclear/incomplete items Thanks for your long response I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the libreoffice lists at this point. What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. Not a blocker for starting incubation. IOW we don't ask for this level of detail from other podlings. 2. The amount of work that will be required to rework dependencies. Not a blocker for starting incubation. Keep in mind that the podling may elect to release via the libreoffice infrastructure, which gives them the same flexibility wrt licensing issues that we gave to subversion (which to this point has yet to cut a formal ASF release). 3. Whether the number of initial committers will be sufficient to start the project (this is probably going to be very subjective). This is a concern I share. So far IBM has committed only a handful of people to this effort, despite big talk from Bob Sutor and friends about their vision for the code. 4. Whether there are enough mentors who have the time to devote to this. Since this is a very large undertaking I'd appreciate a bit more than just their name on the wiki but perhaps an actual estimate of how much time they have to devote to the project. Given the poor track record of most IPMC mentors, I sorta agree with this concern, but looking at the actual names involved I expect most of them will do their fair share. Remember the success or failure of OOo depends on the PPMC's ability to handle the load, not the mentors'. - 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?
FYI- here's a link to the Harmony proposal: http://s.apache.org/KPG - Original Message From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 1:01:38 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? - Original Message From: Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 12:46:31 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the libreoffice lists at this point. What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. Not a blocker for starting incubation. IOW we don't ask for this level of detail from other podlings. It might be a blocker for my vote. You are, of course, free to vote differently. This is a much larger project than usually enters the incubator. I'm thinking this project is on the order of scale that Harmony was. If I'm off by a factor of at least 10 that might be worthwhile to know. I'm worried that if the project has too much of this kind of work to deal with it will kill the community. 2. The amount of work that will be required to rework dependencies. Not a blocker for starting incubation. Keep in mind that the podling may elect to release via the libreoffice infrastructure, which gives them the same flexibility wrt licensing issues that we gave to subversion (which to this point has yet to cut a formal ASF release). Same as my point above. But your point is well taken that there may be other ways to achieve the end goal. If leveraging LibreOffice was going to be the way of doing releases initially then I might expect to see the proposal updated to indicate that there is agreement with that community to do that. In the end, to me this is just making sure the community doesn't have so many roadblocks that failure is very likely. My attitude is that OOo is coming to the ASF. Right now we have a grant, the trademark paperwork will be sorted out, and a developer community is forming. Until we have a podling in place, nothing else in the ASF is really equipped to make timely decisions about OOo. There are lots of unknowns for the ASF in dealing with OOo, but again we don't have any mechanism for dealing with them until there's a podling to coordinate from. If in 6 months time the podling decides to disband, or the IPMC disbands it by force, so be it. Personally I have no idea how my daily workload will be affected by dealing with OOo's infra requirements. If it just means dishing out dedicated resources and setting up end-user services, that shouldn't present any issues. OTOH staffing a forum with support service isn't something I'm equipped to deal with. Either way, I don't intend to block incubation over it- collectively infra will learn to cope with the change. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi Ralph, Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers: On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the libreoffice lists at this point. What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. Not a blocker for starting incubation. IOW we don't ask for this level of detail from other podlings. It might be a blocker for my vote. You are, of course, free to vote differently. This is a much larger project than usually enters the incubator. I'm worried that if the project has too much of this kind of work to deal with it will kill the community. If I understand you correctly, your question is if the supplied set of source files is missing something to make this a working project. As stated earlier, the list of source files provided look like a 1:1 copy from the mercurial repository available at OpenOffice.org. This set of sources in itself is already build by many individual contributers. So while there may be more in Oracles posession, the given source set is IMHO a valid starting point for an OOo reboot. Regards, Christian - 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 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Agreed, just some quick thoughts... What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. List published by Sam, and Christian suggests this reflects the OOo repo... http://people.apache.org/~rubys/openoffice.files.txt Actually tearing into that repo for files differently-copyrighted might be a task for RAT :) 2. The amount of work that will be required to rework dependencies. Seems the list is manageable... http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/External/Modules Note that an unworkable dependency dropped by ASF Office can (and perhaps even should) be retained by LibreOffice in their distribution. 3. Whether the number of initial committers will be sufficient to start the project (this is probably going to be very subjective). After a matter of several more days, I'm optimistic at the current growth. 4. Whether there are enough mentors who have the time to devote to this. Since this is a very large undertaking I'd appreciate a bit more than just their name on the wiki but perhaps an actual estimate of how much time they have to devote to the project. I mostly replied to make sure everyone is clear. Mentors are here to serve as guides. As mentors, we are not coders, or documentors. We often help with the little things (starting the status pages, performing initial list creation, and introducing folks to ASF resources like Jira or Bugzilla, svn and other resources). Having some of those resources directly represented as mentors is going to speed things up enormously and help answer Why does the ASF do it *that* way? in a more thorough way. To the extent that the mentors help manage the project, they are participants in the podling just like all of the other contributors. They may have the only 'binding' vote on certain matters, but the community starts off, day one, as a community of equals. Earned merit follows based on individual contributions. So I feel that 4 is already covered. - 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 Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Agreed, just some quick thoughts... What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. List published by Sam, and Christian suggests this reflects the OOo repo... http://people.apache.org/~rubys/openoffice.files.txt Actually tearing into that repo for files differently-copyrighted might be a task for RAT :) I doubt that you'll find anything differently-copyrighted in that list. My understanding is that Oracle created the list with something like grep '(C) Oracle' :-) I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are they, and how much of a problem will that be? ... Cheers, -g - 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 Sun, 2011-06-05 at 10:01 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: - Original Message snip Personally I have no idea how my daily workload will be affected by dealing with OOo's infra requirements. If it just means dishing out dedicated resources and setting up end-user services, that shouldn't present any issues. OTOH staffing a forum with support service isn't something I'm equipped to deal with. Either way, I don't intend to block incubation over it- collectively infra will learn to cope with the change. Hello Joe, Since this is my (almost) first email to this list: Drew Jensen - Started involvement with OO.o back around 2005. - Primary focus was end user support/QA on the Base module. - I am a member of the Document Foundation, primarily focused on marketing efforts in North America there, for the moment. Alright - OO.o end user forum. Currently the forum is hosted on a single blade in the Oracle offices, Hamburg DE. It runs on VM on that machine (I can get details but it is not particularly taxing from a systems resources POV). It's a pretty straight forward phpBB set of sites w/some light custom mod work. The daily functioning/management of the forums is handled by an autonomous group, The Volunteers, at the forums. This goes all the way from site admin (I was one of the initial group, currently that is Terry Ellison [Individual] and Clayton Cornell [Oracle]) with root access (to the VPS), right down to the individual board moderators. All decisions are made by this group either via lazy consensus or when needed, a vote. The Volunteer group is also represented I see on the wiki page by Dave McKay, one of the global moderators. Terry will be the right POC for any move but at the moment he is on an extended vacation with his wife on some Greek Island, the nerve. *smile* Different subjects - the wiki. MediaWiki, lots of work invested in that beast and this is a larger resource hog. Clayton Cornell at Oracle is the POC here, if I can help with this work also I certainly will and I'll touch base directly with Clayton on that. - Extension/template repository - Currently hosted at Oregon State Open Source Labs. Drupal based, and it is having some real problems right now. IMO, this needs some direct and _immediate_ love. I can't pull the contact name for the Oracle admin on that site from my noggin at the moment. (Matt ?) BTW, TDF is nearing roll out of it's extension site, so this may ease some of the problems users are having with getting dictionaries and such at the moment. Anyway - more detail then is needed for this list I suppose. @Joe feel free to ping me direct if I can help with running down details/information on anything. Thanks much, Drew Jensen - 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?
Thanks for the input Drew. FWIW the Infrastructure Team abides by the same rules as any other project at Apache- volunteers are always welcome, and the more you do (well) the more karma you will gain within Infrastructure. It would be great if people who have root access to any of the existing OOo machines (who don't work for Oracle, since we expect them to bow out eventually) to start following infrastruct...@apache.org and expect to be called on to help support the migration and eventual upkeep of everything currently residing on OOo. Even if you don't have root@ but think you're up to the task, we'll try to give you just enough rope not to hang yourself as you get started. - Original Message From: drew d...@baseanswers.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 2:24:20 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 10:01 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: - Original Message snip Personally I have no idea how my daily workload will be affected by dealing with OOo's infra requirements. If it just means dishing out dedicated resources and setting up end-user services, that shouldn't present any issues. OTOH staffing a forum with support service isn't something I'm equipped to deal with. Either way, I don't intend to block incubation over it- collectively infra will learn to cope with the change. Hello Joe, Since this is my (almost) first email to this list: Drew Jensen - Started involvement with OO.o back around 2005. - Primary focus was end user support/QA on the Base module. - I am a member of the Document Foundation, primarily focused on marketing efforts in North America there, for the moment. Alright - OO.o end user forum. Currently the forum is hosted on a single blade in the Oracle offices, Hamburg DE. It runs on VM on that machine (I can get details but it is not particularly taxing from a systems resources POV). It's a pretty straight forward phpBB set of sites w/some light custom mod work. The daily functioning/management of the forums is handled by an autonomous group, The Volunteers, at the forums. This goes all the way from site admin (I was one of the initial group, currently that is Terry Ellison [Individual] and Clayton Cornell [Oracle]) with root access (to the VPS), right down to the individual board moderators. All decisions are made by this group either via lazy consensus or when needed, a vote. The Volunteer group is also represented I see on the wiki page by Dave McKay, one of the global moderators. Terry will be the right POC for any move but at the moment he is on an extended vacation with his wife on some Greek Island, the nerve. *smile* Different subjects - the wiki. MediaWiki, lots of work invested in that beast and this is a larger resource hog. Clayton Cornell at Oracle is the POC here, if I can help with this work also I certainly will and I'll touch base directly with Clayton on that. - Extension/template repository - Currently hosted at Oregon State Open Source Labs. Drupal based, and it is having some real problems right now. IMO, this needs some direct and _immediate_ love. I can't pull the contact name for the Oracle admin on that site from my noggin at the moment. (Matt ?) BTW, TDF is nearing roll out of it's extension site, so this may ease some of the problems users are having with getting dictionaries and such at the moment. Anyway - more detail then is needed for this list I suppose. @Joe feel free to ping me direct if I can help with running down details/information on anything. Thanks much, Drew Jensen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Totally offtopic, but On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:59, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: ... 2. The amount of work that will be required to rework dependencies. Not a blocker for starting incubation. Keep in mind that the podling may elect to release via the libreoffice infrastructure, which gives them the same flexibility wrt licensing issues that we gave to subversion (which to this point has yet to cut a formal ASF release). We're cutting it as we speak! The tarball is already made, and some signatures are being gathered :-) ... it should pop onto dist.apache.org tomorrow! :-D - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, Am 05.06.2011 20:24, schrieb Simon Phipps: I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are they, and how much of a problem will that be? I've been discussing this privately with some folk, and while we've not done an exhaustive analysis between us we're fairly sure that list doesn't include any of the (numerous) work-in-progress branches that are not merged into the actual release. I have no deep knowledge of the OOo repository, but at least the are that I worked on the last couple of years seems to be missing: translation. There should be a bunch of .sdf files covering some 500k words in ~100 languages. Would be a pity if it was forgotten for OOo, as the translation servers at OOo are down for quite a while now and nobody is answering any request on bringing them up again. Furtheremore all the artwork (icons, branding elements) seem to be missing. I'd expect some .png, .gif or .ico files in the list. regards, André - 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?
Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01 PM: This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this proposal would be because it would be in the best interests of the community to not split the FOSS development and compete with LibreOffice. Not to state the obvious, but OOo was LGPL when LO split from it last year. If you look at the list of proposed committers, you will see names with openoffice.org addresses. The community is currently split. It has been for quite a while now. This predates this discussion and it predates LO. There was a split between Novell and Sun/Oracle years ago. Any analysis that does not acknowledge these critical facts is incomplete. The community is split today. I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete against another. We have several Linux distros. We have BSD. We have other FOSS office suites, like KOffice, Abi Word, Gnumeric, etc. Some might even suggest, just to be provocative, that progress often comes from competition. Just as clearly, progress comes from collaboration as well. It will probably end up to be a mix of competition and collaboration. That is not necessarily a bad thing. -Rob - 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?
I don't think there's any question at this point that there will be a peaceful coexistence between LO and Apache OO. Most of us in the IPMC tho are trying for a better pooling of resources than to simply have 2 competing brands. Pragmatic developers will want to see the general decisions and directions of the two projects to move in concert with one another, so as to maximize code reuse. Ideally we can convince LO to pull from us as upstream providers of the core of the product, and they will respect our license headers accordingly. And when contributions come back to them regarding that core, they will either tell the contributor to resubmit upstream or do so on their behalf. I think at this point that would be the best situation for both communities. But it leaves LO subject to our decisions, which will be a sticking point for many devs who don't want to get involved with the ASF. To bridge that gap will require trust bonds to be built on both sides. Generosity with the use of the OOo mark on our part combined with generosity from TDF regarding build/distribution resources is just a first step in the chain. - Original Message From: robert_w...@us.ibm.com robert_w...@us.ibm.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 3:44:35 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01 PM: This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this proposal would be because it would be in the best interests of the community to not split the FOSS development and compete with LibreOffice. Not to state the obvious, but OOo was LGPL when LO split from it last year. If you look at the list of proposed committers, you will see names with openoffice.org addresses. The community is currently split. It has been for quite a while now. This predates this discussion and it predates LO. There was a split between Novell and Sun/Oracle years ago. Any analysis that does not acknowledge these critical facts is incomplete. The community is split today. I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete against another. We have several Linux distros. We have BSD. We have other FOSS office suites, like KOffice, Abi Word, Gnumeric, etc. Some might even suggest, just to be provocative, that progress often comes from competition. Just as clearly, progress comes from collaboration as well. It will probably end up to be a mix of competition and collaboration. That is not necessarily a bad thing. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote on 06/05/2011 03:57:05 PM: To bridge that gap will require trust bonds to be built on both sides. Generosity with the use of the OOo mark on our part combined with generosity from TDF regarding build/distribution resources is just a first step in the chain. I agree that bonds of trust will need to be built. But I am not so sanguine we know today what the best ways of collaboration will be. We might be surprised by how much progress will be made by having the developers talk this over on the project list over a few weeks, compared to what IPMC members might think on this topic after only a few days. So it might be premature to say that we actually know what the first step in the chain is at this point. Another part of the web of trust here will be for the IPMC to trust the podling to star, in some small way, figuring out some of these things on their own, working along with their peers at TDF/LO. We might stumble. We will need help from mentors. We're certainly be monitored by the IPMC. That is what incubation is for. But ultimately, for the long term strength of the project, we need to discuss and resolve some of these issues in the project. Collaboration with related work in other communities, downstream, upstream or cross-stream, as well as with users, is an important function of any Apache project. We plan on taking that function seriously. -Rob - 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?
Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified. - Original Message From: robert_w...@us.ibm.com robert_w...@us.ibm.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 4:18:53 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote on 06/05/2011 03:57:05 PM: To bridge that gap will require trust bonds to be built on both sides. Generosity with the use of the OOo mark on our part combined with generosity from TDF regarding build/distribution resources is just a first step in the chain. I agree that bonds of trust will need to be built. But I am not so sanguine we know today what the best ways of collaboration will be. We might be surprised by how much progress will be made by having the developers talk this over on the project list over a few weeks, compared to what IPMC members might think on this topic after only a few days. So it might be premature to say that we actually know what the first step in the chain is at this point. Another part of the web of trust here will be for the IPMC to trust the podling to star, in some small way, figuring out some of these things on their own, working along with their peers at TDF/LO. We might stumble. We will need help from mentors. We're certainly be monitored by the IPMC. That is what incubation is for. But ultimately, for the long term strength of the project, we need to discuss and resolve some of these issues in the project. Collaboration with related work in other communities, downstream, upstream or cross-stream, as well as with users, is an important function of any Apache project. We plan on taking that function seriously. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I have tried to follow as much as emails as possible but it's overwhelming. Anyway I feel that several questions do not longer belong to the pre-incubation phase but should be clarified after we have accepted the podling. Many questions are around Can/Should we have a second office community?, is ASL better or GPL, can we handle all the dependencies or what direction should it go. I mean svn vs git is really a topic for the openopffice-dev list. Most of them are all questions we can answer when have a podling - we need votes to decide and a podling population. At the moment its just noise. And to be honest, a separate ML for these issues would be also cool. My question: are we already able to vote for the podling or not? If no - what questions need to be answered before we vote? This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this proposal would be because it would be in the best interests of the community to not split the FOSS development and compete with LibreOffice. I think we should seriously consider that before voting. I agree with all the arguments that ASF members have been putting forward about the good things for an OO project here at the ASF. I much prefer the Apache License and the freedom it provides to that of copyleft licenses. The ASF is a great home for projects and has a long history with established processes and policies. However, I have great respect for what LibreOffice have done and the community they have established. The copyleft license isn't ideal IMO, but other than that I have great respect for what they've managed to setup and the vibrant community that they've established. If LibreOffice hadn't happened then I think it would be better to have an OO project here at the ASF. But it has and they are too far down the road and have expended too much effort to make it appealing for them to join in here. We should also remember that, with Oracle abandoning OO, we are being used to facilitate their business relations with IBM. IBM could (and still can) decide to put its efforts into LibreOffice and while we may have philosophical differences over license, they surely don't as we witnessed when they transferred their efforts from our Harmony project to the GPL'd OpenJDK. Interesting point. I wonder if there is an explanation for this inconsistency from the IBM perspective. IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. I share your concerns; but the fact is we have no content requirements in the Incubator. We have never imposed technical, political or business requirements on podlings. As a result, we have been used to promote silly (IMO) middleware bloat and proprietary code dumps. On the other hand, we have grown some decent communities around stuff that smelled at first. Each time something smelly like this shows up, I ask myself whether it makes sense to push for standards, but I have a hard time coming up with a set of principles that we would likely agree on. Can you? Phil Niall I saw there is a lot of support for this proposal and the initial committers list has grown immense in just a few days. There is already a good amount of mentors and I will add myself too. Code grant seems to be OK and all the other entry criterias seem to be taken. If the would vote would be today, I would vote +1 clearly, because everything we want in the Incubator seem to be solved. Again are we able to vote on the podling? If no, please specifiy why? Cheers, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete against another. And I am puzzled how you don't accept that open source *allows* forking and all that stuff, but that doesn't mean that competition is necessarily good, or just felt as good. In particular not in a case, when the code base is most likely 90% or more identical and there's a lot of common history. And, likewise, not in a case like this where competition primarily means that a lot of effort (building, mirroring, ...) will be spent for simply duplicating things that don't add any value to either project. 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
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:22:35 PM: Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified. Joe, it will be my pleasure to astonish you. But it will take a few more days ;-) It is amazing how much paperwork is involved, at a large corporation, to enable such things. -Rob - 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?
From: Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: 06/05/2011 04:34 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: We should also remember that, with Oracle abandoning OO, we are being used to facilitate their business relations with IBM. IBM could (and still can) decide to put its efforts into LibreOffice and while we may have philosophical differences over license, they surely don't as we witnessed when they transferred their efforts from our Harmony project to the GPL'd OpenJDK. Interesting point. I wonder if there is an explanation for this inconsistency from the IBM perspective. I think it is an error to believe that there are only two choices here, Apache or LibreOffice. There are many other reasonable open source foundations. IBM has good relations with many of them. We have employees who contribute to many projects at Apache. We would be honored to work on OpenOffice at Apache. We think it is a good fit. The license is one factor, but not the only factor. So, it does not logically follow that if a proposal at Apache is rejected that we go to TDF/LO. -Rob - 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?
Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:49:20 PM: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete against another. And I am puzzled how you don't accept that open source *allows* forking and all that stuff, but that doesn't mean that competition is necessarily good, or just felt as good. In particular not in a case, when the code base is most likely 90% or more identical and there's a lot of common history. And, likewise, not in a case like this where competition primarily means that a lot of effort (building, mirroring, ...) will be spent for simply duplicating things that don't add any value to either project. IMHO, we're not forking anything. The proposal to to take the existing OOo code, trademark and website and migrate it to be an Apache project. We have a proposal, we've attracted a good number of proposed committers, including many from the OOo community. This includes among them Oracle experts in OOo, the lead architect for Lotus Symphony, leaders of the OOo education project, some translators from OO, many individual contributors to OOo who never joined TDF/LO, even someone who was left TDF/LO after getting grief for wanting to contribute to OOo was well as LO. This project has a continuity going back over 10 years. Some of the individuals named on the proposal have been working on OOo for nearly that long. As for good competition versus bad competition, I suppose I could just say that is best left to markets to decide, not committees. But that would be flippant. But I'll instead make a serious point. No one wants to waste their time. No one wants to reinvent the wheel. Everyone wants to do something new. So although we are all starting from the same base OOo code, I see no reason why anyone would reasonably expect that Apache OpenOffice and LO would conceivably end up pursuing the same feature set. Sure, that could happen with extraordinary coordination. But it is more natural that each project will explore the options available to it, based on the interests of its developers, the input from its community, the feedback from its users, etc., and chart an independent course. Of coure, coordination is important. One strong form of coordination is the common standard between these two projects, Open Document Format, which will ensure that the end user has the choice to move from one to another according to their needs and preferences. To the extent both projects stay involved in the standards process, this will continue. I happen to chair the committee that maintains the ODF standard and I can proudly say we have participation and good working relations in that committee with representatives from OOo, LO, Symphony, KOffice/Calligra Suote, Gnumeric, Abi Word, and others, including notable Microsoft. In summary, I think the error in your logic is that merely because 90% of the code is in common that necessarily 90% of the future work in the project will be in common. That just doesn't logically follow at all. We share 99% of the DNA with an earthworm. That doesn't make us interchangeable. Regards, -Rob -Rob - 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 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: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote: IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. Thanks for expressing my feelings so well, Niall! I'll lend a voice to the contrary. I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to the incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying to pull away developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the nature of the beast. For me, getting the OOo code fully available under AL is reason enough to +1 it as far as I'm concerned...if I were on the IPMC... :-) - richard - 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?
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:21, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote: IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. I've been considering these same issues. But I've come out with a different view. If Foo decides they can contribute to an Apache Licensed OO.o but not a copyleft LO then I'd rather have Foo contribute. This does not force a split in the community. The copyleft LO can still use Foo's code. They may choose not to, but it is not our actions, here in the incubator, that force that choice. By facilitating Foo we are also facilitating any number of other businesses, large and small. Permissively minded and copyleft (not all copyleft minded folk, true). I've been ready to vote for a while, but I do think we need to give TDF/LO folk more time. Deciding to accept this code (for me) is easier than them deciding whether to sign up as initial committers or not. Ross Niall I saw there is a lot of support for this proposal and the initial committers list has grown immense in just a few days. There is already a good amount of mentors and I will add myself too. Code grant seems to be OK and all the other entry criterias seem to be taken. If the would vote would be today, I would vote +1 clearly, because everything we want in the Incubator seem to be solved. Again are we able to vote on the podling? If no, please specifiy why? Cheers, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Agreed, just some quick thoughts... What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. List published by Sam, and Christian suggests this reflects the OOo repo... http://people.apache.org/~rubys/openoffice.files.txt Actually tearing into that repo for files differently-copyrighted might be a task for RAT :) I doubt that you'll find anything differently-copyrighted in that list. My understanding is that Oracle created the list with something like grep '(C) Oracle' :-) I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are they, and how much of a problem will that be? I've been discussing this privately with some folk, and while we've not done an exhaustive analysis between us we're fairly sure that list doesn't include any of the (numerous) work-in-progress branches that are not merged into the actual release. Is it crucial to get a comprehensive list before the podlet is established, or can ASF still sort this out with Oracle in incubation? I personally don't need anything sorted out before the project enters incubation. All I care about is whether the community will be able to effectively deal with it or be blocked by it. That just requires some idea of how big a problem it is. Ralph - 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?
Am 05.06.2011 21:34, schrieb André Schnabel: Hi, Am 05.06.2011 20:24, schrieb Simon Phipps: I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are they, and how much of a problem will that be? I've been discussing this privately with some folk, and while we've not done an exhaustive analysis between us we're fairly sure that list doesn't include any of the (numerous) work-in-progress branches that are not merged into the actual release. I have no deep knowledge of the OOo repository, but at least the are that I worked on the last couple of years seems to be missing: translation. There should be a bunch of .sdf files covering some 500k words in ~100 languages. Would be a pity if it was forgotten for OOo, as the translation servers at OOo are down for quite a while now and nobody is answering any request on bringing them up again. Furtheremore all the artwork (icons, branding elements) seem to be missing. I'd expect some .png, .gif or .ico files in the list. Yes I can confirm this. The gap was so big that I looked right through it. Nice catch. Regards, Christian - 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?
Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:21:06 PM: I personally don't need anything sorted out before the project enters incubation. All I care about is whether the community will be able to effectively deal with it or be blocked by it. That just requires some idea of how big a problem it is. Oracle has stated that they are committed to supporting the transition into Apache. But I think the only way, as a practical matter, to guarantee that the podling can build OOo from the sources is for the podling to try building OOo from the sources. That is the easiest and most accurate way of figuring this out. All other ways are much more error prone. -Rob - 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 Jun 5, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I could be wrong. I don't work for IBM but I do work for a corporation that uses a similar business model. I would guess that building a product that builds upon a work that is primarily under the LGPL is simply not an option. There are many companies that are comfortable in building a business model where all their products are open source. I don't believe IBM is one of them. So this is not even an option. However, I suspect IBM would be willing to collaborate in other ways - just not in any way that forces them to move from releasing proprietary software products. Since Oracle has put the code under the Apache license I would imagine that IBM would be free to take that code and move it internal should the Incubator PMC not approve the podling. Personally, I would much rather have IBM participate here than see them do that. Ralph - 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?
Am 06.06.2011 00:28, schrieb Simon Brouwer: Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef: Hi Ralph, Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers: On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the libreoffice lists at this point. What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. Not a blocker for starting incubation. IOW we don't ask for this level of detail from other podlings. It might be a blocker for my vote. You are, of course, free to vote differently. This is a much larger project than usually enters the incubator. I'm worried that if the project has too much of this kind of work to deal with it will kill the community. If I understand you correctly, your question is if the supplied set of source files is missing something to make this a working project. As stated earlier, the list of source files provided look like a 1:1 copy from the mercurial repository available at OpenOffice.org. I was looking at that, but I have the impression that the source code for a number of external projects is not present in the mercurial checkout and still has to be retrieved as part of the building process. There are makefiles, patches etc., but no source code worth mentioning, in subdirectories stlport, openssl, hunspell, libxslt... It might be all of these: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries/ Yes and no. Usually external project would be build in modules like stlport, openssl etc. The archives with the sources would be in the above url. But what is missing are the patches to those external source archives. Those patches usually contain modifications so that the source in questions builds in the OOo build environment and also on all platforms supported by OOo. Then it may also contain additional changes or fixes that are not yet upstreamed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (05-06-11 23:25) So, it does not logically follow that if a proposal at Apache is rejected that we go to TDF/LO. After all, why would you ? -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote: On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote: IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. Thanks for expressing my feelings so well, Niall! I'll lend a voice to the contrary. I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to the incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying to pull away developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the nature of the beast. True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down? For me, getting the OOo code fully available under AL is reason enough to +1 it as far as I'm concerned...if I were on the IPMC... :-) License is important, but thats not all the ASF is about. Community is important too. I respect you're right to vote however you wish but if all its down to is license then I'm not sure. Niall - richard - 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?
Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06 PM: I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I could be wrong. And I support 100% your right to have that opinion and to support whatever open source project or projects you want, to worship your own God and to drink the beer of your choice. But if there are a sufficient number of people (as determined subjectively by the IPMC) who have a different opinion, and who would like to do an open source project at Apache, and they have a proposal acceptable in other ways, then I think it should be allowed. Otherwise this is like the Baptists telling the Methodists that they cannot have a church of their own in town, because the Baptists want to recruit a larger choir. We should always remember: Anyone who wants to contribute to TDF/LO currently can. There is absolutely nothing preventing them. The developers on Apache OpenOffice will therefore consist of those who, voluntarily and according to their own preference, have already chosen not to work on LibreOffice, along with those who are willing to work on both projects. -Rob - 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 Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I have tried to follow as much as emails as possible but it's overwhelming. Anyway I feel that several questions do not longer belong to the pre-incubation phase but should be clarified after we have accepted the podling. Many questions are around Can/Should we have a second office community?, is ASL better or GPL, can we handle all the dependencies or what direction should it go. I mean svn vs git is really a topic for the openopffice-dev list. Most of them are all questions we can answer when have a podling - we need votes to decide and a podling population. At the moment its just noise. And to be honest, a separate ML for these issues would be also cool. My question: are we already able to vote for the podling or not? If no - what questions need to be answered before we vote? This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this proposal would be because it would be in the best interests of the community to not split the FOSS development and compete with LibreOffice. I think we should seriously consider that before voting. I agree with all the arguments that ASF members have been putting forward about the good things for an OO project here at the ASF. I much prefer the Apache License and the freedom it provides to that of copyleft licenses. The ASF is a great home for projects and has a long history with established processes and policies. However, I have great respect for what LibreOffice have done and the community they have established. The copyleft license isn't ideal IMO, but other than that I have great respect for what they've managed to setup and the vibrant community that they've established. If LibreOffice hadn't happened then I think it would be better to have an OO project here at the ASF. But it has and they are too far down the road and have expended too much effort to make it appealing for them to join in here. We should also remember that, with Oracle abandoning OO, we are being used to facilitate their business relations with IBM. IBM could (and still can) decide to put its efforts into LibreOffice and while we may have philosophical differences over license, they surely don't as we witnessed when they transferred their efforts from our Harmony project to the GPL'd OpenJDK. Interesting point. I wonder if there is an explanation for this inconsistency from the IBM perspective. IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. I share your concerns; but the fact is we have no content requirements in the Incubator. We have never imposed technical, political or business requirements on podlings. As a result, we have been used to promote silly (IMO) middleware bloat and proprietary code dumps. On the other hand, we have grown some decent communities around stuff that smelled at first. Each time something smelly like this shows up, I ask myself whether it makes sense to push for standards, but I have a hard time coming up with a set of principles that we would likely agree on. Can you? No I can't - but if enough people have concerns then theres probably a good reason for it. If not then it deserves to pass. Niall Niall Phil Niall I saw there is a lot of support for this proposal and the initial committers list has grown immense in just a few days. There is already a good amount of mentors and I will add myself too. Code grant seems to be OK and all the other entry criterias seem to be taken. If the would vote would be today, I would vote +1 clearly, because everything we want in the Incubator seem to be solved. Again are we able to vote on the podling? If no, please specifiy why? Cheers, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe,
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06 PM: I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I could be wrong. And I support 100% your right to have that opinion and to support whatever open source project or projects you want, to worship your own God and to drink the beer of your choice. But if there are a sufficient number of people (as determined subjectively by the IPMC) who have a different opinion, and who would like to do an open source project at Apache, and they have a proposal acceptable in other ways, then I think it should be allowed. Otherwise this is like the Baptists telling the Methodists that they cannot have a church of their own in town, because the Baptists want to recruit a larger choir. It is clear from IBM switching its efforts from Harmony to OpenJDK that there are no religious reasons over license. Other ASF people have expressed in this thread that in their opinion that is reason enough (and I respect that view) - but IBM can't claim that. So I think my point still stands. Niall We should always remember: Anyone who wants to contribute to TDF/LO currently can. There is absolutely nothing preventing them. The developers on Apache OpenOffice will therefore consist of those who, voluntarily and according to their own preference, have already chosen not to work on LibreOffice, along with those who are willing to work on both projects. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:45:16 PM: I'll lend a voice to the contrary. I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to the incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying topull away developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the nature of the beast. True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down? Apache is obviously a market success, nearly 63% market share by some studies.OOo, relative to the stature of the main competitor (Microsoft) has had much more modest penetration. Maybe 10%. LO market share is much smaller, but that may be due to its very early status and relatively lower adoption on Windows. Also, it has had only had 2 stable releases so far, compared to the 10 year history of OOo. In any case, I hope you would agree that divergence in market leading project should be evaluated by an entirely different set of criteria than in the open source office suite area. They are not comparable at all. So I recommend the follow question for consideration: What gets us to 60% for open source productivity? Or even a respectable 20% We might have different opinions on that, but is there anyone truly so confident in their own opinion that they would deny an attempt to try a different approach? Apache OpenOffice could go to 20%. It could go to zero. LO could go to 20%. It could go to zero. None of us are omniscient, not even Simon ;-) But we know this much, starting from such humble beginnings, we have far more to gain than lose by permitting multiple horses to run in this race. -Rob - 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?
It is naive to think IBM is bound by the GPL simply because that's the license java is being offered to the public. No doubt IBM has access to more favorable terms so as to continue offering their competitive java executable under terms largely of their own choosing. Religion and business decisions rarely have anything to do with each other. - Original Message From: Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 7:02:02 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06 PM: I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I could be wrong. And I support 100% your right to have that opinion and to support whatever open source project or projects you want, to worship your own God and to drink the beer of your choice. But if there are a sufficient number of people (as determined subjectively by the IPMC) who have a different opinion, and who would like to do an open source project at Apache, and they have a proposal acceptable in other ways, then I think it should be allowed. Otherwise this is like the Baptists telling the Methodists that they cannot have a church of their own in town, because the Baptists want to recruit a larger choir. It is clear from IBM switching its efforts from Harmony to OpenJDK that there are no religious reasons over license. Other ASF people have expressed in this thread that in their opinion that is reason enough (and I respect that view) - but IBM can't claim that. So I think my point still stands. Niall We should always remember: Anyone who wants to contribute to TDF/LO currently can. There is absolutely nothing preventing them. The developers on Apache OpenOffice will therefore consist of those who, voluntarily and according to their own preference, have already chosen not to work on LibreOffice, along with those who are willing to work on both projects. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote: On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote: IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. Thanks for expressing my feelings so well, Niall! I'll lend a voice to the contrary. I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to the incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying to pull away developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the nature of the beast. True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down? If you proposed a new project to implement the HTTP server in Java and got a community around it I'd vote +1. I wouldn't join because it wouldn't scratch any itch I have but I wouldn't stand in the way. For me, getting the OOo code fully available under AL is reason enough to +1 it as far as I'm concerned...if I were on the IPMC... :-) License is important, but thats not all the ASF is about. Community is important too. I respect you're right to vote however you wish but if all its down to is license then I'm not sure. I care about end users. If my employer wanted to build a product that required ODF and was going to be delivered to a desktop I am 100% sure I would not be able to use LibreOffice. They would happily consume Apache Office. Community is important to me, but only in the sense that a successful community can be built here. Ralph - 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 Jun 5, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06 PM: I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I could be wrong. And I support 100% your right to have that opinion and to support whatever open source project or projects you want, to worship your own God and to drink the beer of your choice. But if there are a sufficient number of people (as determined subjectively by the IPMC) who have a different opinion, and who would like to do an open source project at Apache, and they have a proposal acceptable in other ways, then I think it should be allowed. Otherwise this is like the Baptists telling the Methodists that they cannot have a church of their own in town, because the Baptists want to recruit a larger choir. It is clear from IBM switching its efforts from Harmony to OpenJDK that there are no religious reasons over license. Other ASF people have expressed in this thread that in their opinion that is reason enough (and I respect that view) - but IBM can't claim that. So I think my point still stands. I seriously doubt IBM switched to the license OpenJDK is under. Instead, I'd guess they got a proprietary license from Oracle so they could continue to ship their JDK on AIX. They cannot do that in many other cases. Of course, if you can find the source for IBM's JDK implementation then that would prove me wrong. Ralph - 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 12:04 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:45:16 PM: I'll lend a voice to the contrary. I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to the incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying topull away developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the nature of the beast. True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down? Apache is obviously a market success, nearly 63% market share by some studies. OOo, relative to the stature of the main competitor (Microsoft) has had much more modest penetration. Maybe 10%. LO market share is much smaller, but that may be due to its very early status and relatively lower adoption on Windows. Also, it has had only had 2 stable releases so far, compared to the 10 year history of OOo. In any case, I hope you would agree that divergence in market leading project should be evaluated by an entirely different set of criteria than in the open source office suite area. They are not comparable at all. So I recommend the follow question for consideration: What gets us to 60% for open source productivity? Or even a respectable 20% We might have different opinions on that, but is there anyone truly so confident in their own opinion that they would deny an attempt to try a different approach? Apache OpenOffice could go to 20%. It could go to zero. LO could go to 20%. It could go to zero. None of us are omniscient, not even Simon ;-) But we know this much, starting from such humble beginnings, we have far more to gain than lose by permitting multiple horses to run in this race. It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in existence? Niall -Rob - 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 12:24 AM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.comwrote: It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in existence? I am pretty sure you will not get a satisfactory answer to that question here as the reply is complex and unappealing. I strongly suggest dropping the line of attack, although of course I am a guest to so have none of the authority Sam Ruby would wield, despite the omniscience Rob claims I have :-) Cheers S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote: On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote: IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. Thanks for expressing my feelings so well, Niall! I'll lend a voice to the contrary. I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to the incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying to pull away developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the nature of the beast. True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down? If you proposed a new project to implement the HTTP server in Java and got a community around it I'd vote +1. I wouldn't join because it wouldn't scratch any itch I have but I wouldn't stand in the way. Me too - but thats different from proposing a fork of httpd here. For me, getting the OOo code fully available under AL is reason enough to +1 it as far as I'm concerned...if I were on the IPMC... :-) License is important, but thats not all the ASF is about. Community is important too. I respect you're right to vote however you wish but if all its down to is license then I'm not sure. I care about end users. If my employer wanted to build a product that required ODF and was going to be delivered to a desktop I am 100% sure I would not be able to use LibreOffice. They would happily consume Apache Office. Community is important to me, but only in the sense that a successful community can be built here. Right, but the ASF is not here for our employers and their products. Niall Ralph - 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 Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in existence? Did you not read my post in reply to you an hour ago? The answer is obvious. IBM is not an Open Source company but a proprietary software company. Those are two separate business models. That is like asking Microsoft why you can't have the source code for Windows. Expecting a Leopard to change into a Lion is simply not going to happen - at least not quickly. Ralph - 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 12:28 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.comwrote: It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in existence? I am pretty sure you will not get a satisfactory answer to that question here as the reply is complex and unappealing. I strongly suggest dropping the line of attack, although of course I am a guest to so have none of the authority Sam Ruby would wield, despite the omniscience Rob claims I have :-) Cheers Sam gets only one vote, as do I. Niall S. - 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 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in existence? Did you not read my post in reply to you an hour ago? The answer is obvious. IBM is not an Open Source company but a proprietary software company. Those are two separate business models. That is like asking Microsoft why you can't have the source code for Windows. Expecting a Leopard to change into a Lion is simply not going to happen - at least not quickly. I did read it - but IBM has decided to happily contribute to the GPL'd OpenJDK - so I don't believe it has to change any spots. Niall Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in existence? Did you not read my post in reply to you an hour ago? The answer is obvious. IBM is not an Open Source company but a proprietary software company. Those are two separate business models. That is like asking Microsoft why you can't have the source code for Windows. Expecting a Leopard to change into a Lion is simply not going to happen - at least not quickly. I did read it - but IBM has decided to happily contribute to the GPL'd OpenJDK - so I don't believe it has to change any spots. Yes, it does. IBM doesn't have to operate under the GPL because Oracle has given them permission to use some other license. With LibreOffice that is not an option. Ralph - 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 6/5/11 6:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote: On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.comwrote: IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. Thanks for expressing my feelings so well, Niall! I'll lend a voice to the contrary. I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to the incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying to pull away developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the nature of the beast. True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down? Of course they software is essentially the same because LO is a fork of what is being granted. If I wanted to experiment with an HTTP project that was going to go in a different direction and attract a different community from Apache HTTP Server, I assume I would be able to, even if I started as fork from the current HTTP Server code. 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. Seems this is what the incubator is for, finding out if their vision hold water. - richard For me, getting the OOo code fully available under AL is reason enough to +1 it as far as I'm concerned...if I were on the IPMC... :-) License is important, but thats not all the ASF is about. Community is important too. I respect you're right to vote however you wish but if all its down to is license then I'm not sure. Niall - richard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in existence? Did you not read my post in reply to you an hour ago? The answer is obvious. IBM is not an Open Source company but a proprietary software company. Those are two separate business models. That is like asking Microsoft why you can't have the source code for Windows. Expecting a Leopard to change into a Lion is simply not going to happen - at least not quickly. I did read it - but IBM has decided to happily contribute to the GPL'd OpenJDK - so I don't believe it has to change any spots. Here is another great example - and hopefully makes it obvious. Look at http://svnkit.com/licensing.html. For all the copyleft folks SVNKit is great. It is also great if you want to pay TMate money and ship your proprietary product. IBM can't do the first so it does the second. Not everyone who does dual licensing makes it so obvious but it happens all the time. I actually think it is kind of funny because it totally subverts the whole copyleft freedoms. Ralph
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. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 01.48: Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license? I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail to this list, but you didn't reply so far. So, if you could elaborate on that, I'd really appreciate that. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/5/11 7:38 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 6/5/11 6:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote: On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.comwrote: IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos interests is worth splitting the FOSS community. I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons. Thanks for expressing my feelings so well, Niall! I'll lend a voice to the contrary. I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to the incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying to pull away developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the nature of the beast. True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down? Of course they software is essentially the same because LO is a fork of what is being granted. If I wanted to experiment with an HTTP project that was going to go in a different direction and attract a different community from Apache HTTP Server, I assume I would be able to, even if I started as fork from the current HTTP Server code. 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. Seems this is what the incubator is for, finding out if their vision hold water. For me, getting the OOo code fully available under AL is reason enough to +1 it as far as I'm concerned...if I were on the IPMC... :-) License is important, but thats not all the ASF is about. Community is important too. I respect you're right to vote however you wish but if all its down to is license then I'm not sure. One other point to make, I said for me it is basically sufficient to +1 this proposal just to get all of the OOo code under AL. One reason why I see this as adding significant value is because it opens up a possibility (I won't say freedom, since this is far too noble of a term for the crap we are talking about) to modify and use the code in proprietary products that wouldn't otherwise exist if only LO existed. Again, this last issue is just my opinion, not out of any religion, but for the possibilities that may arise because of it...who knows, maybe one day I might come up with an idea that could use some of the code... ;-) It's always nice to have options. - richard Niall - richard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:48 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 07:02:02 PM: Otherwise this is like the Baptists telling the Methodists that they cannot have a church of their own in town, because the Baptists want to recruit a larger choir. It is clear from IBM switching its efforts from Harmony to OpenJDK that there are no religious reasons over license. Other ASF people have expressed in this thread that in their opinion that is reason enough (and I respect that view) - but IBM can't claim that. So I think my point still stands. Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license? No, it was my point that that they only negative to TDF/OO was the license here: http://markmail.org/message/w5vtsa5nbarmnqxo But please do elaborate on why IBM prefers a new project here rather than contributing to TDF/OO - I am very interested to know. Niall We're havinh some really good discussion on substantive issues happening on the list. But I'm not going to waste time refuting points that no one (to my knowledge) has ever made. -Rob - 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 6/5/11 7:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hallhe...@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. Even if the answer is, We don't have a short-term plan for all of the consumers. I don't really see that as some smoking gun that says they can't enter incubation. Granted, it would be nice if the brand weren't hurt in the process, but at the same time I don't see how we can hold an incubator project accountable for all of that...even if it is their goal to do so. - richard S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi, Niall Pemberton wrote on 2011-06-06 01.58: But please do elaborate on why IBM prefers a new project here rather than contributing to TDF/OO - I am very interested to know. I would be interested, too. And before you talk about stability, safety and track-record, please read these mails on the topic: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06575.html http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06579.html http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06585.html Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 01.48: Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license? I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail to this list, but you didn't reply so far. So, if you could elaborate on that, I'd really appreciate that. I can tell you that those decisions are made above Rob's and my pay grades. Way above. I can tell you that when I was brought into this discussion (mere days before it was decided), there were four foundations under consideration. My input at the time was that they were all fine choices, and that in the event that the ASF was the choice I could help. I made it clear that I would not be advocating for any choice as the ASF and retold a story of a time when I was asked to help with a proposal and Eclipse decided that they really wanted it and the project eventually went to Eclipse. Search the archives for Kabuki if this interests you. Shortly thereafter, it was clear that the ASF was the first choice, and I helped answer a bunch of questions, and helped negotiate the Software Grant. As near as I can tell, the final decision was made by Oracle as, after all, it is their software that they granted to the ASF. Florian - Sam Ruby - 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 1:00 AM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.orgwrote: On 6/5/11 7:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote: 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. Even if the answer is, We don't have a short-term plan for all of the consumers. I don't really see that as some smoking gun that says they can't enter incubation. Granted, it would be nice if the brand weren't hurt in the process, but at the same time I don't see how we can hold an incubator project accountable for all of that...even if it is their goal to do so. I actually agree, but as I say so far I have not seen even that as a statement. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/5/2011 5:30 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01 PM: This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this proposal would be because it would be in the best interests of the community to not split the FOSS development and compete with LibreOffice. Not to state the obvious, but OOo was LGPL when LO split from it last year. If you look at the list of proposed committers, you will see names with openoffice.org addresses. The community is currently split. It has been for quite a while now. This predates this discussion and it predates LO. There was a split between Novell and Sun/Oracle years ago. Any analysis that does not acknowledge these critical facts is incomplete. The community is split today. I'm not disagreeing with you on this. But Oracle is shutting that down and asking us to provide FOSS home for it and all I'm saying is why, when there is already a good FOSS home in existence? Because Oracle and TDF, in confidential negotiations, could not come to an agreement. And I think that's all that need be said on the matter. - 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?
Attempting to guess IBM strategy around this ... IMO the reason this whole thing is happening is because with TDF there no longer was a place that downstream proprietary aggregators of OO like IBM could use to build a closed-source solution (no org to do a dual license with). The Apache license is (one of) the best options for that and certainly the Apache brand doesn't hurt towards building a credible alternative to MS Office. To that extent it wouldn't surprise me at all to see IBM donating whatever their proprietary add-ons from their Lotus product to this project and thereby taking a larger role. My concern from the ASF's point of view is that how do we protect from IBM doing a Harmony on this? I guess one advantage is that there's nothing else out there and an office work toolset is a necessary feature for many vendors ... so there's relatively little risk of a TCK or an OpenJDK type alternative happening. If MSFT decides to open up office (not likely) or Google decides to open source their corresponding apps bits (again, not likely at least until OO has a credible Web offering) something could happen but those are far fetched at this point. After all that, TDF has unfortunately been left holding the wrong end of the stick :(. If I was in TDF I'd definitely feel screwed by Oracle .. but really this is not just Oracle but rather the larger value-add community around OO saying lets get together. That is not possible without the Apache license as those guys all want to make proprietary products. ASF is not the bad guy but rather the one who has all the features to host this project as a result. To that extent those value-add types are using ASF but that's not necessarily a bad way for this project to get started. Whether it succeeds long term is a function of it becoming a true ASF project with a multitude of disparate contributors etc.. The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know a few OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as that'll confuse end-users. Sanjiva. On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:22:35 PM: Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified. Joe, it will be my pleasure to astonish you. But it will take a few more days ;-) It is amazing how much paperwork is involved, at a large corporation, to enable such things. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, Director Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/ Founder, Chairman CEO; WSO2; http://wso2.com/ Founder Director; Thinkcube Systems; http://www.thinkcube.com/ Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote on 06/05/2011 07:52:53 PM: Hi, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 01.48: Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license? I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail to this list, but you didn't reply so far. So, if you could elaborate on that, I'd really appreciate that. And I remind you of this response I gave you before: http://markmail.org/message/wwoxum4tuvdg5q3p I believe I described the range of areas that were important to us, and clearly it was more than the license. To elaborate further could be seen as me denigrating TDF/LO, and I think that would be toxic to further collaborations, collaborations I look forward to. -Rob - 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?
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. 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. 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. -Rob - 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 1:32 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana sanj...@opensource.lkwrote: The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know a few OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as that'll confuse end-users. I still think that's open for discussion. To my eyes it still makes a lot of sense to have Apache host the parts IBM (and maybe others, although their existence is exaggerated) need for their proprietary products, and then have TDF maintain a consumer end-user deliverable downstream as well. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail to this list, but you didn't reply so far. So, if you could elaborate on that, I'd really appreciate that. I can tell you that those decisions are made above Rob's and my pay grades. Way above. Sam you out of all people know that the pay grade theory is useless here. I too know that IBM decisions are made at a pay grade that probably doesn't know what a mailing list is ... but the ASF is a different beast and you can't negotiate with the ASF in a board room or on conference calls. Need to make the case here. I attempted to guess IBM strategy in this in my previous mail. Sanjiva. -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder, Director Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/ Founder, Chairman CEO; WSO2; http://wso2.com/ Founder Director; Thinkcube Systems; http://www.thinkcube.com/ Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 07:58:17 PM: No, it was my point that that they only negative to TDF/OO was the license here: http://markmail.org/message/w5vtsa5nbarmnqxo But please do elaborate on why IBM prefers a new project here rather than contributing to TDF/OO - I am very interested to know. And Eris, the goddess of strive, engraved the golden apple to the fairest... As stated before, I decline to be goaded into laying out the detailed reasons, since that would be denigrating to TDF/LO and poison future opportunities for collaboration. -Rob - 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 1:37 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 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 I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue creating, building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all the locales it is today, along with an estimate for the IPMT of how big the task is, whether it's adequately staffed, what infrastructure it needs and so on. Your focus on the ODF market is laudable and you know I've been supporting similar aims for even longer than you have. But my big concern remains making sure that throughout 2011 there's a fresh, live consumer binary being produced to keep the enormous existing user-base satisfied. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/5/2011 5:45 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (05-06-11 23:25) So, it does not logically follow that if a proposal at Apache is rejected that we go to TDF/LO. After all, why would you ? Purely argumentative posts aren't appropriate on this forum. Take it elsewhere. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
