Re: The WiderNet Project requests permission to use your product

[Kadal Amutham]

I have authored few books. I can donate for free distribution

With Warm Regards

V.Kadal Amutham
919444360480
914422591980

On 1 August 2016 at 23:16, Natasha Mencher  wrote:

> To Whom it May Concern,
> This request for donation of materials is part of the eGranary Digital
> Library (www.widernet.org/digitallibrary) created by the WiderNet Project
> at The University of Iowa. The WiderNet Project is a nonprofit organization
> that aims to improve digital communication and access to information for
> students and scholars in developing countries.
> Since many of the institutions we work with do not have adequate Internet
> connections, this project delivers digital information and technology to
> Web servers inside the institution, where it can be accessed quickly at no
> cost over their local area networks. Currently, we deliver this information
> by installing hard drives on the servers. In the future, we will be
> delivering this information by other means, such as satellite transmission.
> So far, we have delivered the eGranary Digital Library to over 500 schools,
> clinics and other organizations worldwide, and the results have been
> immediate and gratifying. Students and faculty alike have benefited greatly
> from easy access to hundreds of thousands of current academic materials.
> We are in the process of collecting additional Internet-based content,
> donated by the authors, which will be accessible to professors and students
> in developing countries. As a compliment to this material, we are hoping to
> provide them with cutting edge software to further bridge the digital
> divide. We are asking to donate software products to our partner
> universities and/or provide software that we can include in our digital
> library for download to our partner institutions' intranets (but not on the
> Internet.)
> We are specifically requesting a donation of the following materials for
> future versions of the eGranary Digital Library:
> Apache OpenOffice, located at https://www.openoffice.org/
> Please indicate the type of permission you wish to allow when responding
> to this message.
> -- FULL PERMISSION (To donate requested materials).
> -- PARTIAL PERMISSION (To donate materials that you specify.)
> -- DENY PERMISSION (To not donate materials to students in developing
> countries at this time.)
> If you wish to limit our delivery of your content to only hard drive
> installation or only satellite transmission, please indicate this as well.
> More information about the eGranary Digital Library, including a list of
> frequently asked questions can be found at: www.widernet.org/digtallibrary
> . More information about the
> WiderNet Project -- which includes training computer technicians, coaching
> decision makers, and shipping donated computers and software to our project
> partners -- can be found at www.widernet.org.
> We hope that you will join our efforts to provide students and scholars
> around the world with access to educational information and resources.
> Sincerely,
> Natasha Mencher
>
>

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Keith N. McKenna]

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 
> 
>> -Original Message- From: Keith N. McKenna
>> [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016
>> 12:47 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying
>> openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
>> 
>> Replies in line
>> 
>> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is
>>> requested.
>>> 
>>> The files to be used in testing are at 
>>> > patch1/binaries/Windows>.
>>> 
>>> The files to be tested and reviewed are
>>> 
>>> * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt The description of the 
>>> procedure for applying a corrected library file to installed
>>> copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 on Windows.  Read this first
>>> before deciding to download the Zip file and attempting the
>>> procedure.
>>> 
>>> * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip The Zip
>>> archive containing the files to be used in the procedure.  There
>>> is a copy of the README within the archive as well.
>>> 
>>> * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc * 
>>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5 * 
>>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256 Files
>>> that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash, and an SHA256 hash
>>> that can be used to verify the integrity of the download and, in
>>> the case of the digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy
>>> of the download.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> REQUESTED TESTING
>>> 
>>> * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc, .md5, and 
>>> .sha256 files against the .zip, report any difficulties that may
>>> have been encountered.
>>> 
>> [knmc] checked the zip against all of the signatures with the
>> following results: .md5 matched .sha256 matched .asc failed with
>> error not enough information to verify signature.
>> 
> [orcmid]
> 
> Had you installed my PGP key (in the current KEYS file)?
[knmc]
I imported the entire KEYS from the link provided.
[/knmc]
> How did you download the .asc file?
I used the .asc file from the zip archive.
The problem was that your key has not been certified by anyone. I
changed the owner trust in Kleopatra for your key to require only one
certification and then certified your key with mine. Once I did that the
check passed fine.
[/knmc]
> 
> [ ... ]
>>> 

>> [knmc] In section 10 of the procedure section the line "Open the
>> folder selected in step (7)" should read "Open the folder selected
>> in step (8)"
>> 
>> On the whole I found the README difficult to follow with
>> information out of sequence and extraneous information such as not
>> accepting help from unsolicited phone calls. Not bad information,
>> just out of place in a process document. Now that I have some
>> available time I will get out my "blue pencil" and mark-up the
>> document.
> [orcmid]
> 
> Note that someone has already spell-checked the document and I will
> do so in the future.
> 
> And all suggestions are welcome.
> 
[knmc]
I have also included an odt version of the document with recorded
changes, both some spell checking changes, moving some things around,
and other suggested changes.
[/knmc]
>> 
>> One improvement for the average user would be to automate the
>> process with a .bat file that could find the proper folders and do
>> the copy and rename procedures.
> [orcmid]
> 
> Oh duhh!
> 
> Yes, there is no reason a .bat file can't be included in the package.
> With "Run as Administrator" that should also relieve the pain for
> folks on non-Administrator accounts who are able to provide/select
> administrator credentials.
> 
> I would leave the longer instructions, perhaps in an Appendix, for
> those who prefer the manual procedure or who otherwise have
> reservations/problems about running a script.
> 
[knmc]
Let me try my hand at rewriting the manual instructions. I used to write
process sheets for a living be interesting to see if my engineering
skills are still up to the task.
[/knmc]

> Something to work on over the next day or two while also gaining more
> results from the current testing.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users
>>> in applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience
>>> of more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of 
>>> non-experts is important in achieving that.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you
>>> provide.
>>> 
>>> - Dennis
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org 
>>> +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456
>>> 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 



README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.odt
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RE: Merge with LibreOffice?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Howard Morris (aka Col Boogie)
> [mailto:howard_cary_mor...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 14:49
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Merge with LibreOffice?
> 
> Hi all,
> From what I can tell, the 2 groups can (and are?) borrowing from
> each other. I prefer its free and open concept. However, seeing some
> other recent emails and some concerns of my own, I think we can make it
> easier for new developers by doing the following:
[orcmid] 

I am not aware of much being borrowed from LibreOffice for Apache OpenOffice, 
but perhaps I am not paying attention.  I do know that the security teams 
cooperate because that is of mutual interest for the safety of all our users.  
A principle under which the Apache Software Foundation projects operate is that 
work from other projects must be willingly contributed by someone with the 
authority to do so.  It is not OK for AOO developers and other contributors to 
AOO to simply go out and harvest material from other projects, even were the 
other licenses compatible for use in an ASF Project.

>   1.. Copying all source code into a zip file, to get all the code just
> copy that one file.
[orcmid] 

The complete source code of any release is always available in a variety of 
archive formats.  To find source for Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2, go to

And click on the right sidebar link "Alternative download link (source)" under 
"Additional Resources".

>   2.. Make a zip file containing descriptions of all source code. It
> also needs overview modules how certain modules work together.
>   3.. Make a zip file containing instructions how to do complies, put
> everything together, check out modules, etc.
[orcmid] 

Currently, documentation is distributed across two wikis and a web site.  
Although there are ways to create zip files of web pages, the current efforts 
use tools, services, and organizations that are not easily captured in sets of 
static web pages.  However, there is a great opportunity for volunteers to work 
on slowly building-out and also finding ways to capture/export improved 
documentation at all levels.

>   4.. For Open Office Site, add module that lets people check out/in
> modules and tell others what they are working on. Of course, there has
> to be a companion transactions that allows people to see what is going
> on. There also needs some kind of security to keep people from trashing
> the site.
[orcmid] 

This is related to how Apache OpenOffice contribution governance is handled.  
This is done by Subversion and it permits check-out at the levels you suggest.  
However, the means of contributing source code is in accordance with Apache 
Software Foundation requirements for operation of projects.  Project governance 
is covered in materials on the  pages.  All operations 
against the code base are recoverable.

> If it were me, I’d break down the code into independent modules. For
> Writer, that may mean don’t load the math, table, picture (frame), etc.
> module until there is a need for it.
[orcmid] 

Dynamically-loaded shared libraries are used throughout OpenOffice, although 
there might be more that could be done architecturally.  That is something to 
look into but don't expect serious refactoring in any kind of short time span, 
if ever.

> 
> Howard


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 Source

[Andrea Pescetti]

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

It's possible that using the Unix-compatible versions of the .md5 and .sha256 
text formatting will work better


This worked better for my usual workflow. But there are many ways and 
tools to check an MD5 hash. It is fine to keep the current files as they 
are, no need to worry about this. I specified the detail just in case 
someone is confused by md5sum complaining that the target file cannot be 
found.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merge with LibreOffice?

[Chuck Davis]

Then there is the usability issue

LO have been attempting to copy MS Office and have succeeded to the point
that in many ways it is as annoying as MS Office.

AOO, on the other hand, have maintained usability features that, in my
opinion, simply make it a better user experience.

They may have more commits but those commits are, in many instances, taking
them in the wrong direction.

That's my $.02.

Re: Merge with LibreOffice?

[Howard Morris (aka Col Boogie)]

Hi all,
From what I can tell, the 2 groups can (and are?) borrowing from each 
other. I prefer its free and open concept. However, seeing some other recent 
emails and some concerns of my own, I think we can make it easier for new 
developers by doing the following:
  1.. Copying all source code into a zip file, to get all the code just copy 
that one file. 
  2.. Make a zip file containing descriptions of all source code. It also needs 
overview modules how certain modules work together. 
  3.. Make a zip file containing instructions how to do complies, put 
everything together, check out modules, etc. 
  4.. For Open Office Site, add module that lets people check out/in modules 
and tell others what they are working on. Of course, there has to be a 
companion transactions that allows people to see what is going on. There also 
needs some kind of security to keep people from trashing the site.
If it were me, I’d break down the code into independent modules. For Writer, 
that may mean don’t load the math, table, picture (frame), etc. module until 
there is a need for it.

Howard

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 12:47
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Replies in line
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> >
> > The files to be used in testing are at
> >  patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
> >  The files to be tested and reviewed are
> >
> > * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt The description of the
> > procedure for applying a corrected library file to installed copies
> > of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 on Windows.  Read this first before
> > deciding to download the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> >
> > * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip The Zip archive
> > containing the files to be used in the procedure.  There is a copy of
> > the README within the archive as well.
> >
> > * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc *
> > apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5 *
> > apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256 Files that
> > provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash, and an SHA256 hash that can
> > be used to verify the integrity of the download and, in the case of
> > the digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of the download.
> >
> >
> > REQUESTED TESTING
> >
> > * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc, .md5, and
> > .sha256 files against the .zip, report any difficulties that may have
> > been encountered.
> >
> [knmc]
> checked the zip against all of the signatures with the following
> results:
> .md5 matched
> .sha256 matched
> .asc failed with error not enough information to verify signature.
> 
[orcmid] 

Had you installed my PGP key (in the current KEYS file)?  
How did you download the .asc file?

[ ... ]
> >
> [knmc]
> In section 10 of the procedure section the line "Open the folder
> selected in step (7)" should read "Open the folder selected in step (8)"
> 
> On the whole I found the README difficult to follow with information out
> of sequence and extraneous information such as not accepting help from
> unsolicited phone calls. Not bad information, just out of place in a
> process document. Now that I have some available time I will get out my
> "blue pencil" and mark-up the document.
[orcmid] 

Note that someone has already spell-checked the document and I will do so in 
the future.

And all suggestions are welcome.

> 
> One improvement for the average user would be to automate the process
> with a .bat file that could find the proper folders and do the copy and
> rename procedures.
[orcmid] 

Oh duhh!

Yes, there is no reason a .bat file can't be included in the package.  With 
"Run as Administrator" that should also relieve the pain for folks on 
non-Administrator accounts who are able to provide/select administrator 
credentials.

I would leave the longer instructions, perhaps in an Appendix, for those who 
prefer the manual procedure or who otherwise have reservations/problems about 
running a script.

Something to work on over the next day or two while also gaining more results 
from the current testing.


> 
> > The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> > applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of
> > more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of
> > non-experts is important in achieving that.
> >
> > Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> > +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> > X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> >
> 
> 
> 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merge with LibreOffice?

[Pedro Giffuni]

On Aug 3, 2016 10:00 AM, "Christoph Reg"  wrote:
> Regardless of why or how,
> when it comes to development, it's clear that LO has won. Hands down.
> LO gets more commits in one or two days than AOO had since the
> beginning of the year.

The second part of the claim is probably true, but the first part of the 
claim is totally irrelevant, in the sense that this is not
really a competition. I don't think anyone of us here in AOO has any 
desire to "beat" another opensource project and at least I don't

really make money from OpenOffice.

> Are there any reasons why [merging AOO and LO] is not feasible?

That's something I have personally never considered. What would
"merging" mean? from the rest of the posting, I guess that would
mean closing the Apache project (we can't assign the name "Apache 
OpenOffice" to something we don't develop) and conceding the

good will to LibreOffice.

They are evidently still finding value from our patches ... in fact,
I have been spammed by member of the Document Foundation, which I
thought knew better, about my "contributions", so I guess stopping
my development would hurt them in some way.

I personally don't find their development methodology or their community 
attractive. I have never used LO, but if their project

has advanced so much, why would the need us to shut down?

Pedro.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[DISCUSS][VOTE] Release apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 Source

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 12:15
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 Source
> 
[ ... ]
> $ svn co
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/source
> 
> $ dos2unix apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.md5
> 
> (this is needed as apparently md5sum will get confused by newlines in
> the checksum file).
> 
> $ md5sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.md5
> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip: OK
> 
> $ dos2unix apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.sha256
> $ sha256sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.sha256
> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip: OK
[ ... ]
[orcmid] 

I believe PGP protocol is clever about line-ending differences, canonicalizing 
text streams as part of verifying signatures (and reading the signature block). 
 Windows developer tools tend to be forgiving in that manner as well although 
it might not help if the results are given back to folks using *nix systems.

It's possible that using the Unix-compatible versions of the .md5 and .sha256 
text formatting will work better, since the Windows-native versions of md5sum 
and sha256sum may be more forgiving.

Oh, and the SVN config should be changed to recognize .md5 and .sha256 files as 
text and to be handled with respect to native.  I suspect that the default *in* 
the SVN should be Unix-style.

Time to run some experiments.

 - Dennis

PS: I just added 

*.asc = svn:eol-style=native;;charset=UTF-8
*.md5 = svn:eol-style=native
*.sha256 = svn:eol-style=native

To my SVN config file.

Once we have the files in default SVN line-ending texts on the SVN, we can 
check how well that works when the files are checked-out and also when the 
files are accessed directly from the repository via http.

Note, the charset=UTF-8 should also be used for KEYS files also, which need to 
work without character-set translation and not have code-page/single-byte 
interchange problems.  We have conflicts between UTF-8 and Western European 
(ISO 8859-1) in our KEYS file right now.  That's a separate problem that needs 
to be handled by configuring PGP tools to use UTF-8 instead of what is the 
default on a given machine and operating system and which breaks across the 
international reach of the ASF and Apache OpenOffice.




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[Discuss] New template on cwiki for Release Notes

[Keith N. McKenna]

Using the template facilities of the cwiki I have created a template for
creating Release Notes for AOO. It utilizes variables to fill in
repetitive entries, and instructive text to aid in writing.

This is my first attempt at creating a confluence template and would
like some feedback on it. Test test it log into your cwiki account and
click the create button. This will open a modal window with all the
available templates. Scroll down to the AOO Release Notes and select it
and click create. This will start the template wizard which will allow
you to fill in text boxes and choose items from a drop down list.
Italicized text on a gray background is instructional text and cannot be
changed in the wizard. It is place holder content and can only be
changed in the document itself.

Scroll to the bottom of the wizard and click next to see what the
created document will look like.

Any and all feedback is welcomed as replies to this thread.

Regards
Keith








signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Merge with LibreOffice?

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

I think your question is valid.

The situation of Free Officesuites is worrying; not only for Apache
OpenOffice, but also for LibreOffice.

Apache OpenOffice has crossed a deep valley, but it goes slowly upwards
now from a very low level.

I don't want to talk about the situation at LO, but my impression is,
that it looks better, than it really is.

So a good and fair collaboration between the two projects would be wise.

But it isn't possible, as long as one party claims, that the other party
has to declare to be dead.

A reunion of the two projects is also not possible yet.

One reason is the deep disappointment people feel.

But there are also some more objective reasons, for example different
release philosophies, different opinions about the transference of
rights to the entity of the project etc.

One more reason is, that some people are votaries of licences with
copyleft and others of licences without any copyleft.

So the question is valid, but the answer is: Not yet.

Kind regards
Michael




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Keith N. McKenna]

Replies in line

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> 
> The files to be used in testing are at 
> .
>
>  The files to be tested and reviewed are
> 
> * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt The description of the
> procedure for applying a corrected library file to installed copies
> of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 on Windows.  Read this first before
> deciding to download the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> 
> * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip The Zip archive
> containing the files to be used in the procedure.  There is a copy of
> the README within the archive as well.
> 
> * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc *
> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5 *
> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256 Files that
> provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash, and an SHA256 hash that can
> be used to verify the integrity of the download and, in the case of
> the digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of the download.
> 
> 
> REQUESTED TESTING
> 
> * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc, .md5, and
> .sha256 files against the .zip, report any difficulties that may have
> been encountered.
> 
[knmc]
checked the zip against all of the signatures with the following results:
.md5 matched
.sha256 matched
.asc failed with error not enough information to verify signature.

> * If you performed the procedure, report * the version of Microsoft
> Windows and the type of account used (administrator or standard
> user). * report whether the procedure succeeded * if the procedure
> failed or met with difficulties, please summarize the problems and
> how you over- came any of them
> 
[knmc]
performed the procedure successfully on Windows 7 home premium 64 bit
using an administrator account.
Also performed the procedure successfully on the same system using an
standard user account. This was however tedious as most of the steps to
apply the patched .dll required entering the administrator password.

> * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or confusing
> information in the README.  Describe what you see as important
> improvements before making general release of the procedure for use
> by non-expert users of Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
> 
[knmc]
In section 10 of the procedure section the line "Open the folder
selected in step (7)" should read "Open the folder selected in step (8)"

On the whole I found the README difficult to follow with information out
of sequence and extraneous information such as not accepting help from
unsolicited phone calls. Not bad information, just out of place in a
process document. Now that I have some available time I will get out my
"blue pencil" and mark-up the document.

One improvement for the average user would be to automate the process
with a .bat file that could find the proper folders and do the copy and
rename procedures.

> The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of
> more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of
> non-experts is important in achieving that.
> 
> Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A 
> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> 






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Merge with LibreOffice?

[Phillip Rhodes]

This isn't a competition to be "won" or "lost".  AOO and LO aren't really
competing.
AOO is for people who want an awesome office suite that's licensed under
a permissive license.  LO is for people who want the same under a copyleft
license.   Two different audiences, two different projects.

Personally I think it would be ideal if the two projects could/would freely
share code, but due to the license conflict, AOO can't reuse code
from LO unless the author(s) is/are willing to also license it under the
ALv2.  My understanding is that most LO contributors aren't willing to do
so.
OTOH, they can freely use contributions made to AOO, which is a slight
advantage to them.

All of that said, I wish people would just forget the bickering between the
two
projects, and try to find ways to work together cooperatively.  Personally
I don't give
 two shits about the history of LO/AOO, the fork, any controversy involving
Sun, Oracle, StarOffice, etc.  I just want awesome F/OSS software.  And
as far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier.


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Wolf Halton  wrote:

> I think OpenOffice has the larger install base even if LO has much of the
> Linux desktop distro installs.
> AOO is still attracting developers and other project members.
> There may be a finite audience for office suites, but it is a very large
> audience.
>
> Wolf Halton
> Mobile/Text 678-687-6104
>
> --
> Sent from my iPhone. Creative word completion courtesy of Apple, Inc.
>
> > On Aug 3, 2016, at 14:02, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> >> Regardless of why or how,
> >> when it comes to development, it's clear that LO has won.
> >
> > LO is only a fork. OO is the original and will always be the original.
> That's the fact.
> >
> >> What are your views on this?
> >
> > LO is the fork, not OpenOffice.
> >
> > We should never forget how members of TDF have members of Apache
> OpenOffice attacked with words. We should never forget what lies were
> spread about OpenOffice so that LO is better off.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gretings.
> > Jörg
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 Source

[Andrea Pescetti]

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/source
Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on the approval of the candidate 
for release.
  [  ] +1 Approve, with description
  [  ]  0 Abstain
  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation


+1 Approve.


For +1 Approve votes, please describe the results of verifying the patch 
materials


$ svn co 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/source


$ dos2unix apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.md5

(this is needed as apparently md5sum will get confused by newlines in 
the checksum file).


$ md5sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.md5
apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip: OK

$ dos2unix apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.sha256
$ sha256sum -c apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.sha256
apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip: OK

$ gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip.asc 
apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1.zip


(worked and reported a valid signature by Dennis)

As for building, I verified that the poly2.cxx included is identical to 
the one in my AOO410 checkout, which I used to build OpenOffice on 
linux-64 a few days ago and run tests.


Additionally, the provided patch file matches with the output of
$ svn diff -c r1754535 main/tools/source/generic/poly2.cxx
as expected.

Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merge with LibreOffice?

[Wolf Halton]

I think OpenOffice has the larger install base even if LO has much of the Linux 
desktop distro installs. 
AOO is still attracting developers and other project members. 
There may be a finite audience for office suites, but it is a very large 
audience. 

Wolf Halton
Mobile/Text 678-687-6104

--
Sent from my iPhone. Creative word completion courtesy of Apple, Inc. 

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 14:02, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Hello, 
> 
>> Regardless of why or how,
>> when it comes to development, it's clear that LO has won.
> 
> LO is only a fork. OO is the original and will always be the original. That's 
> the fact.
> 
>> What are your views on this?
> 
> LO is the fork, not OpenOffice.
> 
> We should never forget how members of TDF have members of Apache OpenOffice 
> attacked with words. We should never forget what lies were spread about 
> OpenOffice so that LO is better off.
> 
> 
> 
> Gretings.
> Jörg
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 

Re: Merge with LibreOffice?

[Jörg Schmidt]

Hello, 

> Regardless of why or how,
> when it comes to development, it's clear that LO has won. 

LO is only a fork. OO is the original and will always be the original. That's 
the fact.

> What are your views on this?

LO is the fork, not OpenOffice.

We should never forget how members of TDF have members of Apache OpenOffice 
attacked with words. We should never forget what lies were spread about 
OpenOffice so that LO is better off.



Gretings.
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Merge with LibreOffice?

[Javen O'Neal]

On Aug 3, 2016 10:00 AM, "Christoph Reg"  wrote:
> Regardless of why or how,
> when it comes to development, it's clear that LO has won. Hands down.
> LO gets more commits in one or two days than AOO had since the beginning
of
> the year.

> Are there any reasons why [merging AOO and LO] is not feasible?

I'll take a guess here:
1) Prevalence. LibreOffice has been the default office productivity suite
in Ubuntu for a while. This has had some downstream effects [1] on
popularity.
2) Licensing. Apache OpenOffice is licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
LibreOffice is licensed under Mozilla Public License 2.0, GNU LGPL v3+, and
is based on code from Apache Open Offfice (ASL 2.0-licensed). Since
contributions to LibreOffice are not compatible with the ASL 2.0 license,
they cannot be committed upstream to Apache OpenOffice. This is partially
responsible for the asymmetry in commits that you have observed.
Adding a license to either project or requiring contributions to be
licensed differently also poses problems, since this may affect upstream
and downstream projects, and prior contributions would need to be
relicensed (which may require obtaining approval from every past
contributor, many of whom are not reachable). The effort required to
resolve these legal challenges is massive, and I'd rather that effort be
spent on software improvement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#History

RE: SVN directory structure

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Thanks for the suggestion, Javen.

I note that the particular wiki pages is described as being accurate through 
OpenOffice.org 3.3 although there have been a few more-recent edits.

The links would still be useful.  There is also a plethora of missing links to 
further details.  An interesting opportunity for developers who enjoy recording 
their investigations into areas of the source.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Javen O'Neal [mailto:one...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 23:44
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: SVN directory structure
> 
> To make it faster for new developers to navigate the AOO source, could
> you include a link to
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories on
> https://openoffice.apache.org/source.html and in the README
> (https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/README?view=markup)
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

SVN directory structure

[Javen O'Neal]

To make it faster for new developers to navigate the AOO source, could
you include a link to
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories on
https://openoffice.apache.org/source.html and in the README
(https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/README?view=markup)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org