Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Rory O'Farrell]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:58:04 -0700
"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 22:04
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> > 
> > Am 01.09.2016 um 00:59 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> > > dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> -Original Message-
> > >>> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:30
> > >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>> Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> > >>>
> > >>> On 31/08/2016 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > >>>
> > >> I think that is the case because downstream producers, who get the
> > support
> > >> business, contribute to their upstream framework or source-code
> > distributor.
> > >>
> > >> What indication is there that any of that is working for Apache
> > >> OpenOffice?  Maybe if we stopped shipping binaries?  How would that
> > work
> > >> for the individuals who seem to dominate our download consumption?
> > >
> > >
> > > Since the "downstream" producers seem better equipped to deliver
> > signed and
> > > vulnerability-corrected binaries to non-specialist consumers on a
> > timely
> > > schedule, maybe delegating downloads to them would be a good option
> > for the
> > > project?
> > 
> > Stopping shipping binaries would cause some negative effect for our
> > project, so it might be an option, but not best one.
> > 
> > Binaries made by our community are essential for our QA.
> > 
> > Without them we stand "with empty hands" in the public with negative
> > effects for our brand and image.
> > 
> > Supporting our users by community members would break down.
> > 
> > So the impact for the improvement of our commity would be tremendous, if
> > we "delegate" this tasks to a third party.
> [orcmid] 
> 
> I agree with Michael.  Ceasing to provide builds from Apache OpenOffice but 
> having a downstream producer provide them would be retirement of Apache 
> OpenOffice in everything but name only.

I agree emphatically.  Most OO users want to download and go - they have not 
the time or skills to build a version, which  is not as trivial task, as 
frequenters of the dev ML will be aware.  

RoryOF 

> 
> Also, the "downstream" in this thread refers to sellers of support who 
> apparently package their own versions.  We see no contributions back to the 
> code base from any of those, whoever they might be.
> 
> This is different than existence of forks and openoffice.org-descendant 
> cousins who operate their own code base and support it, whoever those might 
> be.  While that might be disagreeable to some, it is in the spirit of 
> open-source and the commitment of the Apache Software Foundation to serving 
> the public interest.  (The protection of the respective trademarks is a 
> different matter with respect to avoiding confusion about the origin of the 
> effort.)
> 
> 
> > 
> > Kind regards
> > Michael
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>

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

RE: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 22:04
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> 
> Am 01.09.2016 um 00:59 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> > dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:30
> >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> >>>
> >>> On 31/08/2016 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >>>
> >> I think that is the case because downstream producers, who get the
> support
> >> business, contribute to their upstream framework or source-code
> distributor.
> >>
> >> What indication is there that any of that is working for Apache
> >> OpenOffice?  Maybe if we stopped shipping binaries?  How would that
> work
> >> for the individuals who seem to dominate our download consumption?
> >
> >
> > Since the "downstream" producers seem better equipped to deliver
> signed and
> > vulnerability-corrected binaries to non-specialist consumers on a
> timely
> > schedule, maybe delegating downloads to them would be a good option
> for the
> > project?
> 
> Stopping shipping binaries would cause some negative effect for our
> project, so it might be an option, but not best one.
> 
> Binaries made by our community are essential for our QA.
> 
> Without them we stand "with empty hands" in the public with negative
> effects for our brand and image.
> 
> Supporting our users by community members would break down.
> 
> So the impact for the improvement of our commity would be tremendous, if
> we "delegate" this tasks to a third party.
[orcmid] 

I agree with Michael.  Ceasing to provide builds from Apache OpenOffice but 
having a downstream producer provide them would be retirement of Apache 
OpenOffice in everything but name only.

Also, the "downstream" in this thread refers to sellers of support who 
apparently package their own versions.  We see no contributions back to the 
code base from any of those, whoever they might be.

This is different than existence of forks and openoffice.org-descendant cousins 
who operate their own code base and support it, whoever those might be.  While 
that might be disagreeable to some, it is in the spirit of open-source and the 
commitment of the Apache Software Foundation to serving the public interest.  
(The protection of the respective trademarks is a different matter with respect 
to avoiding confusion about the origin of the effort.)


> 
> Kind regards
> Michael
> 
> 



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

Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 01.09.2016 um 00:59 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:30
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
>>>
>>> On 31/08/2016 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>> I think that is the case because downstream producers, who get the support
>> business, contribute to their upstream framework or source-code distributor.
>>
>> What indication is there that any of that is working for Apache
>> OpenOffice?  Maybe if we stopped shipping binaries?  How would that work
>> for the individuals who seem to dominate our download consumption?
> 
> 
> Since the "downstream" producers seem better equipped to deliver signed and
> vulnerability-corrected binaries to non-specialist consumers on a timely
> schedule, maybe delegating downloads to them would be a good option for the
> project?

Stopping shipping binaries would cause some negative effect for our
project, so it might be an option, but not best one.

Binaries made by our community are essential for our QA.

Without them we stand "with empty hands" in the public with negative
effects for our brand and image.

Supporting our users by community members would break down.

So the impact for the improvement of our commity would be tremendous, if
we "delegate" this tasks to a third party.

Kind regards
Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Simon Phipps]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:30
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> >
> > On 31/08/2016 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >
> I think that is the case because downstream producers, who get the support
> business, contribute to their upstream framework or source-code distributor.
>
> What indication is there that any of that is working for Apache
> OpenOffice?  Maybe if we stopped shipping binaries?  How would that work
> for the individuals who seem to dominate our download consumption?


Since the "downstream" producers seem better equipped to deliver signed and
vulnerability-corrected binaries to non-specialist consumers on a timely
schedule, maybe delegating downloads to them would be a good option for the
project?

S.

RE: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:30
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> 
> On 31/08/2016 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 
> > One can always create an independent entity.  It hasn't happened.  By
> now, the odds are clearly that it will not.
> 
> The Document Foundation is an independent entity, building upon the OOo
> 3.x code base.
> 
> > My considered opinion is that the greatest barrier is lack of a
> meaningful business/operation/funding model.
> 
> The business model is giving away the product, but selling support
> services. Sun almost understood that model. Oracle understands that
> model,but would rather throw away their product, than actually implement
> that model at the SOHO, or smaller scale.
> 
> As a business model, it works for most of the Apache projects that
> emerged from Incubation, and stayed out of the Attic.
[orcmid] 

I think that is the case because downstream producers, who get the support 
business, contribute to their upstream framework or source-code distributor.  

What indication is there that any of that is working for Apache OpenOffice?  
Maybe if we stopped shipping binaries?  How would that work for the individuals 
who seem to dominate our download consumption?


> 
> > I also don't think working on Apache OpenOffice is much of a resume
> builder,
> 
> What builds resumes is the specific contributions one makes. The
> specific project, be it AOo, No Man's Sky, BLEACHER, or anything else,
> is irrelevant.
> 
> >since there is no other project like it and probably will never be.
> 
> At least four other office suites utilize code from AOo. There are at
> least a thousand office suites for Android, and iOS, for which AOo
> development is a useful starting point.
> 
> > If my appraisal is sound, that leaves us with the question about
> sustainability of the Apache OpenOffice project itself,
> 
> Go back to the revenue generation model.
> 
> Back in the 2003-2005 time frame, there were several organizations
> licensing their rebranded version of OOo for between US$20 and US$5,000
> per seat, per year. For various reasons, I quit tracking that data, and
> thus don't know what the current situation is.
> 
> A decade ago, it was fairly difficult to find worksites of more than
> 1,000 that used OOo. Today, worksites of more than 5,000 users, using an
> OOo derivative, are not not that scarce. Somebody is providing tech
> support for those worksites.
[orcmid] 

And how does any of that contribute to the development of Apache OpenOffice?  
As far as I can tell, those downstream activities are invisible to the project.

 - Dennis

> 
> jonathon
> 
> -
> 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

Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Kay Schenk]

On 08/31/2016 09:26 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> One can always create an independent entity.  It hasn't happened.  By now, 
> the odds are clearly that it will not.  I suspect that folks who would pursue 
> that avenue do not see a meaningful opportunity.
> 
> My considered opinion is that the greatest barrier is lack of a meaningful 
> business/operation/funding model.  In addition, there is an insufficient 
> supply of developers having the capacity, capability, and will to provide 
> material improvements to Apache OpenOffice.  Whatever the pool might be, it 
> is aging and shrinking for many reasons.  The affliction that Apache 
> OpenOffice suffers under in that respect also besets any organization set up 
> to support the code, even with paid developers.
> 
> I also don't think working on Apache OpenOffice is much of a resume builder, 
> since there is no other project like it and probably will never be. 

I think this all depends on what one's interests consists of. If you're
a C++ programmer looking for a challenging opportunity, Apache
OpenOffice might be just what you had in mind for a resume builder.

 There are far easier projects to build an open-source reputation with,
ones that build developer skills in areas where there is a growing and
future demand.
> 
> Having suggested this much, I don't think it is meaningful to address how an 
> external entity could "ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF 
> way."
> 
> If my appraisal is sound, that leaves us with the question about 
> sustainability of the Apache OpenOffice project itself, and what the 
> consequences of unsustainability are.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 14:04
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
>>
>> There is a bit to discuss about how "The entity should ensure they work
>> on the AOO codebase using the ASF way" is workable or not.  In
>> particular, no such entity can direct the project at Apache or otherwise
>> effectively govern it.  More about that later.
>>
>> There is another option, summarized below.  One might also consider this
>> as a reality check.  That is, if that is not feasible, it may be that no
>> other arrangement is.
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Suminda Dharmasena [mailto:sirinath19...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 00:23
>>> To: market...@openoffice.apache.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am writing to see if the current AOO Dev team would like to create
>> an
>>> independent entity which can:
>>>
>>>- Do trainings
>>>- Accept funds and have pay developers
>>>- Write commercial books / online tutorials with sponsorship
>>>
>>> This can be used have paid developers working on the project. Maybe
>>> initial
>>> sponsorship can come from an organisation like Redhat, Pivotal or
>> Micro
>>> Focus if they are interested. Perhaps companies which used the code
>> base
>>> in
>>> the past like IBM or Oracle.
>>>
>>> The entity should ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF
>>> way.
>>>
>>> Suminda
>> [orcmid]
>>
>> AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
>>
>> Another way to interact and support Apache OpenOffice in terms of
>> collaborative contributions is as follows.
>>
>>  1. Establish a downstream producer, TeamX (for example), that provides
>> releases of derivative software based on Apache OpenOffice.
>>
>>  2. Assumption #1: The Apache License Version 2 (ALv2) is honored in the
>> use of Apache OpenOffice source code.  Apache trademark requirements are
>> satisfied in any use as part of the branding of the downstream product.
>>
>>  3. Assumption #2: New code and modifications to the TeamX derivative
>> are also under ALv2.
>>
>>  4. Open-Source Good Citizenship: The ALv2-licensed fixes and repairs
>> are contributed back upstream to Apache OpenOffice.  Components from
>> other sources would, of course, be contributed upstream to those
>> sources.  Contributions and joint concerns might lead to use of the
>> OpenOffice bugzilla as a coordination point.
>>
>>  5. Opportunity.  The business model, organization, and governance of
>> TeamX is not of concern to the ASF.
>>
>>  6. Opportunity.  The Apache Software Foundati

Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[toki]

On 31/08/2016 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> One can always create an independent entity.  It hasn't happened.  By now, 
> the odds are clearly that it will not.  

The Document Foundation is an independent entity, building upon the OOo
3.x code base.

> My considered opinion is that the greatest barrier is lack of a meaningful 
> business/operation/funding model.

The business model is giving away the product, but selling support
services. Sun almost understood that model. Oracle understands that
model,but would rather throw away their product, than actually implement
that model at the SOHO, or smaller scale.

As a business model, it works for most of the Apache projects that
emerged from Incubation, and stayed out of the Attic.

> I also don't think working on Apache OpenOffice is much of a resume builder, 

What builds resumes is the specific contributions one makes. The
specific project, be it AOo, No Man's Sky, BLEACHER, or anything else,
is irrelevant.

>since there is no other project like it and probably will never be.

At least four other office suites utilize code from AOo. There are at
least a thousand office suites for Android, and iOS, for which AOo
development is a useful starting point.

> If my appraisal is sound, that leaves us with the question about 
> sustainability of the Apache OpenOffice project itself,

Go back to the revenue generation model.

Back in the 2003-2005 time frame, there were several organizations
licensing their rebranded version of OOo for between US$20 and US$5,000
per seat, per year. For various reasons, I quit tracking that data, and
thus don't know what the current situation is.

A decade ago, it was fairly difficult to find worksites of more than
1,000 that used OOo. Today, worksites of more than 5,000 users, using an
OOo derivative, are not not that scarce. Somebody is providing tech
support for those worksites.

jonathon

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

RE: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

One can always create an independent entity.  It hasn't happened.  By now, the 
odds are clearly that it will not.  I suspect that folks who would pursue that 
avenue do not see a meaningful opportunity.

My considered opinion is that the greatest barrier is lack of a meaningful 
business/operation/funding model.  In addition, there is an insufficient supply 
of developers having the capacity, capability, and will to provide material 
improvements to Apache OpenOffice.  Whatever the pool might be, it is aging and 
shrinking for many reasons.  The affliction that Apache OpenOffice suffers 
under in that respect also besets any organization set up to support the code, 
even with paid developers.

I also don't think working on Apache OpenOffice is much of a resume builder, 
since there is no other project like it and probably will never be.  There are 
far easier projects to build an open-source reputation with, ones that build 
developer skills in areas where there is a growing and future demand.   

Having suggested this much, I don't think it is meaningful to address how an 
external entity could "ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF way."

If my appraisal is sound, that leaves us with the question about sustainability 
of the Apache OpenOffice project itself, and what the consequences of 
unsustainability are.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 14:04
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> 
> There is a bit to discuss about how "The entity should ensure they work
> on the AOO codebase using the ASF way" is workable or not.  In
> particular, no such entity can direct the project at Apache or otherwise
> effectively govern it.  More about that later.
> 
> There is another option, summarized below.  One might also consider this
> as a reality check.  That is, if that is not feasible, it may be that no
> other arrangement is.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Suminda Dharmasena [mailto:sirinath19...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 00:23
> > To: market...@openoffice.apache.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am writing to see if the current AOO Dev team would like to create
> an
> > independent entity which can:
> >
> >- Do trainings
> >- Accept funds and have pay developers
> >- Write commercial books / online tutorials with sponsorship
> >
> > This can be used have paid developers working on the project. Maybe
> > initial
> > sponsorship can come from an organisation like Redhat, Pivotal or
> Micro
> > Focus if they are interested. Perhaps companies which used the code
> base
> > in
> > the past like IBM or Oracle.
> >
> > The entity should ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF
> > way.
> >
> > Suminda
> [orcmid]
> 
> AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
> 
> Another way to interact and support Apache OpenOffice in terms of
> collaborative contributions is as follows.
> 
>  1. Establish a downstream producer, TeamX (for example), that provides
> releases of derivative software based on Apache OpenOffice.
> 
>  2. Assumption #1: The Apache License Version 2 (ALv2) is honored in the
> use of Apache OpenOffice source code.  Apache trademark requirements are
> satisfied in any use as part of the branding of the downstream product.
> 
>  3. Assumption #2: New code and modifications to the TeamX derivative
> are also under ALv2.
> 
>  4. Open-Source Good Citizenship: The ALv2-licensed fixes and repairs
> are contributed back upstream to Apache OpenOffice.  Components from
> other sources would, of course, be contributed upstream to those
> sources.  Contributions and joint concerns might lead to use of the
> OpenOffice bugzilla as a coordination point.
> 
>  5. Opportunity.  The business model, organization, and governance of
> TeamX is not of concern to the ASF.
> 
>  6. Opportunity.  The Apache Software Foundation requirements beyond
> honoring of the ALv2 that govern Apache projects serving the public
> interest do not apply, although TeamX could operate in a harmonious
> manner.
> 
>  7. Opportunity. So long as there is clear separation and no comingling
> in source-code files, TeamX is not constrained from also using code or
> components from other projects, such as those using licenses such as the
> MPL or, under appropriate conditions, something like LGPL2, with
> appropriate honoring of those licenses too.  However, to avoid tainting
> of upstream source-code contributions back to Apache OpenOffice

Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Suminda Dharmasena]

This is exactly what I had in mind also.



>
> AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
>
> Another way to interact and support Apache OpenOffice in terms of
> collaborative contributions is as follows.
>
>  1. Establish a downstream producer, TeamX (for example), that provides
> releases of derivative software based on Apache OpenOffice.
>
>  2. Assumption #1: The Apache License Version 2 (ALv2) is honored in the
> use of Apache OpenOffice source code.  Apache trademark requirements are
> satisfied in any use as part of the branding of the downstream product.
>
>  3. Assumption #2: New code and modifications to the TeamX derivative are
> also under ALv2.
>
>  4. Open-Source Good Citizenship: The ALv2-licensed fixes and repairs are
> contributed back upstream to Apache OpenOffice.  Components from other
> sources would, of course, be contributed upstream to those sources.
> Contributions and joint concerns might lead to use of the OpenOffice
> bugzilla as a coordination point.
>
>  5. Opportunity.  The business model, organization, and governance of
> TeamX is not of concern to the ASF.
>
>  6. Opportunity.  The Apache Software Foundation requirements beyond
> honoring of the ALv2 that govern Apache projects serving the public
> interest do not apply, although TeamX could operate in a harmonious manner.
>
>  7. Opportunity. So long as there is clear separation and no comingling in
> source-code files, TeamX is not constrained from also using code or
> components from other projects, such as those using licenses such as the
> MPL or, under appropriate conditions, something like LGPL2, with
> appropriate honoring of those licenses too.  However, to avoid tainting of
> upstream source-code contributions back to Apache OpenOffice, there must be
> careful management of IP and reliance on code (source or binary) under
> non-ALv2 license (and ALv2 code which is not the original work of TeamX).
>
>  8. Opportunity. Depending on how close the operation of TeamX releases
> remains to that of Apache OpenOffice, especially at the beginning, one can
> rely on the Apache OpenOffice mediawiki and openoffice.org site in large
> measure, so long as there is no confusion.  Also, the Apache OpenOffice
> Community Forums are more ecumenical in how they can provide forum support
> to OpenOffice.org-lineage ODF-supporting products. How confusion is avoided
> would need to be worked out, but this provides TeamX time to develop its
> own support as that ends up having unique requirements.
>
> This is not unlike how downstream organizations rely on Apache OpenOffice
> for specialized distributions (e.g., FreeBSD, OS/2, and Solaris).  There
> are other Apache projects where the downstream ecosystem is quite robust
> and the key Apache project deliverable is the source-code release and not
> so much any end-user binary distributions.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

RE: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

There is a bit to discuss about how "The entity should ensure they work on the 
AOO codebase using the ASF way" is workable or not.  In particular, no such 
entity can direct the project at Apache or otherwise effectively govern it.  
More about that later.

There is another option, summarized below.  One might also consider this as a 
reality check.  That is, if that is not feasible, it may be that no other 
arrangement is.

> -Original Message-
> From: Suminda Dharmasena [mailto:sirinath19...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 00:23
> To: market...@openoffice.apache.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am writing to see if the current AOO Dev team would like to create an
> independent entity which can:
> 
>- Do trainings
>- Accept funds and have pay developers
>- Write commercial books / online tutorials with sponsorship
> 
> This can be used have paid developers working on the project. Maybe
> initial
> sponsorship can come from an organisation like Redhat, Pivotal or Micro
> Focus if they are interested. Perhaps companies which used the code base
> in
> the past like IBM or Oracle.
> 
> The entity should ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF
> way.
> 
> Suminda
[orcmid] 

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

Another way to interact and support Apache OpenOffice in terms of collaborative 
contributions is as follows.

 1. Establish a downstream producer, TeamX (for example), that provides 
releases of derivative software based on Apache OpenOffice.

 2. Assumption #1: The Apache License Version 2 (ALv2) is honored in the use of 
Apache OpenOffice source code.  Apache trademark requirements are satisfied in 
any use as part of the branding of the downstream product.

 3. Assumption #2: New code and modifications to the TeamX derivative are also 
under ALv2.

 4. Open-Source Good Citizenship: The ALv2-licensed fixes and repairs are 
contributed back upstream to Apache OpenOffice.  Components from other sources 
would, of course, be contributed upstream to those sources.  Contributions and 
joint concerns might lead to use of the OpenOffice bugzilla as a coordination 
point.

 5. Opportunity.  The business model, organization, and governance of TeamX is 
not of concern to the ASF.

 6. Opportunity.  The Apache Software Foundation requirements beyond honoring 
of the ALv2 that govern Apache projects serving the public interest do not 
apply, although TeamX could operate in a harmonious manner.

 7. Opportunity. So long as there is clear separation and no comingling in 
source-code files, TeamX is not constrained from also using code or components 
from other projects, such as those using licenses such as the MPL or, under 
appropriate conditions, something like LGPL2, with appropriate honoring of 
those licenses too.  However, to avoid tainting of upstream source-code 
contributions back to Apache OpenOffice, there must be careful management of IP 
and reliance on code (source or binary) under non-ALv2 license (and ALv2 code 
which is not the original work of TeamX).

 8. Opportunity. Depending on how close the operation of TeamX releases remains 
to that of Apache OpenOffice, especially at the beginning, one can rely on the 
Apache OpenOffice mediawiki and openoffice.org site in large measure, so long 
as there is no confusion.  Also, the Apache OpenOffice Community Forums are 
more ecumenical in how they can provide forum support to OpenOffice.org-lineage 
ODF-supporting products. How confusion is avoided would need to be worked out, 
but this provides TeamX time to develop its own support as that ends up having 
unique requirements.

This is not unlike how downstream organizations rely on Apache OpenOffice for 
specialized distributions (e.g., FreeBSD, OS/2, and Solaris).  There are other 
Apache projects where the downstream ecosystem is quite robust and the key 
Apache project deliverable is the source-code release and not so much any 
end-user binary distributions.

 - Dennis


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

Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Jörg Schmidt]

Hello, 

> From: Suminda Dharmasena [mailto:sirinath19...@gmail.com] 

> I am writing to see if the current AOO Dev team would like to 
> create an
> independent entity which can:
> 
>- Do trainings
>- Accept funds and have pay developers
>- Write commercial books / online tutorials with sponsorship

you're right, but I fear that the general rules of Apache do not allow.

Let me describe the practice:

a problem is the inability to be able to donate directly to a particular Apache 
project.

In the German OpenOffice community so we have activities besides the official 
project develop to be able to act.
One example is http://www.prooo-box.org, because that is formally an entirely 
independent project, but we would rather were part of AOO.


These things concern matters which are only central to clarify with Apache 
because OpenOffice is part of Apache and can not act alone, but must take into 
account the will of all Apache members, so all Apache projects.

I'd want the very act could the local communities AOO independent, but that 
they can not do unilaterally, but only with the consent of all Apache members.

I think we should look for solutions for this purpose, because they are for AOO 
equally important as good programmers.


Example:
Money is not the only issue, but donations are an important issue. imho it 
would, for example, very helpful if the local (national) communities (for 
example, en, de, it, it, ) could collect even donations.
I can very well imagine that an integral part of these donations would then be 
forwarded to Apache, but over the rest of the local communities must be able to 
freely dispose.

The specific problem is that we as could accumulate in Germany every year many 
thousands of euros for OpenOffice, but at the same time hardly anyone has 
interest in Apache generally to donate.
The result of the overall situation is therefore unfortunately we practice (in 
Germany) have no donations for OpenOffice, nor donations for Apache.
This vicious circle needs to be broken.



Greetings,
Jörg


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

Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Suminda Dharmasena]

Every remaining dev / concerned user must get together a take an
initiative. Things rarely workout on their own.

On 11 July 2016 at 13:11, JZA  wrote:

> Sounds good, there have been some intention of these in the past, not sure
> how open the community is right now to be honest. But is a good idea if
> somehow there is some strong backing.
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Suminda Dharmasena <
> sirinath19...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am writing to see if the current AOO Dev team would like to create an
> > independent entity which can:
> >
> >- Do trainings
> >- Accept funds and have pay developers
> >- Write commercial books / online tutorials with sponsorship
> >
> > This can be used have paid developers working on the project. Maybe
> initial
> > sponsorship can come from an organisation like Redhat, Pivotal or Micro
> > Focus if they are interested. Perhaps companies which used the code base
> in
> > the past like IBM or Oracle.
> >
> > The entity should ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF way.
> >
> > Suminda
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> 9060 55AB FFD2 2F02 0E1A  3409 599C 14FC 9450 D3CF
>

Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[JZA]

Sounds good, there have been some intention of these in the past, not sure
how open the community is right now to be honest. But is a good idea if
somehow there is some strong backing.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Suminda Dharmasena  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am writing to see if the current AOO Dev team would like to create an
> independent entity which can:
>
>- Do trainings
>- Accept funds and have pay developers
>- Write commercial books / online tutorials with sponsorship
>
> This can be used have paid developers working on the project. Maybe initial
> sponsorship can come from an organisation like Redhat, Pivotal or Micro
> Focus if they are interested. Perhaps companies which used the code base in
> the past like IBM or Oracle.
>
> The entity should ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF way.
>
> Suminda
>



-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
9060 55AB FFD2 2F02 0E1A  3409 599C 14FC 9450 D3CF

Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

[Suminda Dharmasena]

Hello,

I am writing to see if the current AOO Dev team would like to create an
independent entity which can:

   - Do trainings
   - Accept funds and have pay developers
   - Write commercial books / online tutorials with sponsorship

This can be used have paid developers working on the project. Maybe initial
sponsorship can come from an organisation like Redhat, Pivotal or Micro
Focus if they are interested. Perhaps companies which used the code base in
the past like IBM or Oracle.

The entity should ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF way.

Suminda