Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christian Lohmaier]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:35:46AM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
>> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
>> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?
>
> The horse is out of the barn.  Oracle has submitted a signed software grant to
> the ASF.  Once the process completes, that code becomes available under the
> Apache License 2.0, a *permissive*, attribution-based license.  Oracle cannot
> now impose additional copyleft restrictions by adding a new license to the
> mix.

Of course they could. Nobody hinders them from applying different
licenses to the same code. It cannot take back the Apache License, as
it cannot take back the existing LGPL, but that doesn't mean it is
impossible to add another license.

(but I agree with Jim that this is very, very, very unlikely to happen)

> Once you've granted a permissive license, you can't take it back.

Yes, but that wasn't the point to begin with. (and noone here claimed
that this was possible, and nobody requested to not release the code
under the Apache license either). It was a "what would the TDF had
wished for" item - in order to really be able to have a LGPL/MPL dual
license, and not only have MPL for stuff that was added after the
split. .
But as it is more or less moot, as the grant apparently applies to the
whole (including current) codebase, it is almost-as-good (in terms of
code-reuse by the TDF/LibreOffice, independent of collaboration with
the OOo-apache-incubator-project)

There have been claims that the TDF demanded impossible things from
Oracle, but a re-licensing to MPL isn't that much different from
re-licensing to Apache-license from my POV.

ciao
Christian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Jim Jagielski]

The ASF accepts contributions from anyone. You don't have to
be "part" of the ASF to contribute. The ASF is a meritocracy,
and so the more you do, the more you *can* do, and providing
bug fixes, patches, documentation, translations are all
welcome and needed contributions (as with all FOSS projects).

As far as the 'Oracle won't make new licensing agreements', I am
not an Oracle person, but that is the clear indication they have
given me, and one will I have little doubt they mean.

On that last point, btw, LOo/TDF and others (including I think
IBM, although I know that there have been bad history and bad
blood there) are to be commended because it was the pressure
that you all provided that finally encouraged Oracle to release
the s/w. That is *not* easy. When Oracle digs in their heels,
they dig in deep (does Larry wear stilettos?). The fact that
it wasn't a revenue source for them certainly made it easier,
but a victory is a victory. Enjoy the rare one rather than
look for next one ;)

Cheers!

On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev wrote:

> So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except
> apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part
> of ASF.
> 
> 
> Laurence
> 
> 
> On 05/06/2011, at 10:11, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> 
>>> Man, how I love fullquotes :-/
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev  
>>> wrote:
 Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing 
 companies.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, but what is your point?
>>> my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to
>>> sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just "to have a say"
>>> or "now there are no restrictions yet".
>>> 
>>> Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache
>>> only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times
>>> that they won't allow other licenses.
>>> 
>>> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
>>> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
>>> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?
>>> 
>>> So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially
>>> when you write it as a f'up to my posting.
>>> 
>> 
>> If the reason to not "join" Apache is because you are holding
>> out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think
>> you are holding out for a lost, lost hope.
>> 
>> Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly
>> clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle
>> will keep :/
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
>> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
>> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
>> deleted
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
> 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:35:46AM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?

The horse is out of the barn.  Oracle has submitted a signed software grant to
the ASF.  Once the process completes, that code becomes available under the
Apache License 2.0, a *permissive*, attribution-based license.  Oracle cannot
now impose additional copyleft restrictions by adding a new license to the
mix.

Suppose that theoretically, Oracle were to declare tomorrow that in addition
to the ALv2, the OOo codebase would now also be available under the GPL.  That
action would not prevent the formation of the new Incubator podling at the ASF,
because it could be done under the terms of the signed ALv2 software grant.

Once you've granted a permissive license, you can't take it back.

Disclaimer: I participate in ASF projects, but I'm speaking as just some guy
on the internet trying to help everybody out.

Marvin Humphrey


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Laurence Jeloudev]

So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except
apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part
of ASF.


Laurence


On 05/06/2011, at 10:11, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>
>> Man, how I love fullquotes :-/
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev  
>> wrote:
>>> Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing 
>>> companies.
>>
>> Sorry, but what is your point?
>> my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to
>> sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just "to have a say"
>> or "now there are no restrictions yet".
>>
>> Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache
>> only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times
>> that they won't allow other licenses.
>>
>> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
>> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
>> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?
>>
>> So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially
>> when you write it as a f'up to my posting.
>>
>
> If the reason to not "join" Apache is because you are holding
> out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think
> you are holding out for a lost, lost hope.
>
> Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly
> clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle
> will keep :/
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Jim Jagielski]

On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

> Man, how I love fullquotes :-/
> 
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev  wrote:
>> Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing 
>> companies.
> 
> Sorry, but what is your point?
> my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to
> sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just "to have a say"
> or "now there are no restrictions yet".
> 
> Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache
> only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times
> that they won't allow other licenses.
> 
> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?
> 
> So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially
> when you write it as a f'up to my posting.
> 

If the reason to not "join" Apache is because you are holding
out hope that Oracle may still one day re-license, then I think
you are holding out for a lost, lost hope.

Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly
clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle
will keep :/


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Sam, *,

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Christian Lohmaier
>  wrote:
> [...]
>> It's not even clear whether it will be the current codebase or some
>> older version IBM is basing their version on.
>
> It is the codebase on openoffice.org.  The intent is to move the full
> version history.  The mechanics of this have yet to be worked out.

Thanks a lot for this important info!

ciao
Christian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christian Lohmaier]

Man, how I love fullquotes :-/

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev  wrote:
> Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing 
> companies.

Sorry, but what is your point?
my point was that it is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to
sign up as contributors to the incubator proposal just "to have a say"
or "now there are no restrictions yet".

Once in Apache, there is no discussion about licences anymore. Apache
only has its own license and has made it pretty clear numerous times
that they won't allow other licenses.

Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?

So I absolutely don't udnerstand what you're trying to say, especially
when you write it as a f'up to my posting.

ciao
Christian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Sam Ruby]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Christian Lohmaier
 wrote:
>
> As far as I know, there is only the "intent" of Oracle to
> donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear statement has been
> made as to what exact sourcecode this will cover.

The ASF has a signed software grant with a specific list of source files.

> It's not even clear whether it will be the current codebase or some
> older version IBM is basing their version on.

It is the codebase on openoffice.org.  The intent is to move the full
version history.  The mechanics of this have yet to be worked out.

- Sam Ruby

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Dennis, *;

(sorry to you for mailing twice, I did mean to send it to the list,
and not as pm only)

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> Since the third-party stuff is already integrated into LibreOffice, it 
> doesn't matter whether it passes through the Apache OpenOffice incubator or 
> not.  You have it and you are using it the same way OpenOffice.org was using 
> it.

Yes, the thirdparty stuff by itself doesn't matter, but as I also
wrote: What matters is the code that hooks up this thirdparty.

> What I think is more important is the opportunity the bits that will be under 
> AFL 2.0 provide to The Document Foundation if it is desired to re-license as 
> other than LGPL3+.

What you also miss is the second point I mentioned, namely what
version will that codebase be?
There is no point in having a 3-4 year old codebase. That would be
useless to TDF/LO (useless to the whole community IMHO - but as it is
nowhere stated what the agreement covers..)

ciao
Christian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Since the third-party stuff is already integrated into LibreOffice, it doesn't 
matter whether it passes through the Apache OpenOffice incubator or not.  You 
have it and you are using it the same way OpenOffice.org was using it.

What I think is more important is the opportunity the bits that will be under 
AFL 2.0 provide to The Document Foundation if it is desired to re-license as 
other than LGPL3+.

 - Dennis

PS: My understanding from posts by Apache officials on the incubator-general 
discussion list is that Apache has submitted the license document.  It is now 
up to Apache to decide to accept OpenOffice.org and create an incubator 
podling, as they are called.  Oracle staff has said they will assist the 
podling in transferring the OpenOffice.org artifacts to Apache custody.

-Original Message-
From: lohma...@googlemail.com [mailto:lohma...@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of 
Christian Lohmaier

Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 16:04
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[ ... ]

The problem is that OOo includes quite a bit of thirdparty stuff, none of those 
bein Apache-licensed and thus without a chance of being included in the 
apache-project. So very likely the code that hooks that code up into OOo will 
be dumped along with those external stuff and thus it is very unclear what will 
be covered by the grant, and what not. As far as I know, there is only the 
"intent" of Oracle to donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear 
statement has been made as to what exact sourcecode this will cover.
[ ... ]


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Laurence Jeloudev]

Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies.

Laurence

On 05/06/2011, at 8:41, Christian Lohmaier
 wrote:

> Hi Allen, *,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer  
> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I don't know what vision IBM has for the project.  I don't know what code
>> contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I
>> don't know what they will be.  I don't know what contributions members of
>> the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make.
>
> Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press
> releases, that was ended up in OOo was  basically nonexistent. As
> you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can
> probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before
> switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip
> service.
>
> The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
> contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
> Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
> he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
> needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
> it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
> branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support
>
>> I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation for us to get
>> involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
>> project.
>
> Not really, as you first have to "surrender" to the Apache's licence
> terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort.
>
>>  We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum
>> benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM.
>> Basically, we can get IBM working for us.
>
> I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive
> licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing?
> They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working
> on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to
> ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the
> abovementioned accessibility dump.
>
> But before you say: It's not only IBM in the foundation. Then let me
> ask: Who else is? Oracle is gone for good. The few  individual
> contributers that have enlisted themselves as initial contributers on
> the apache wiki are to a big extent non-coder. (Not to say that the
> non-code contributors are not important, that's far from being my
> point)
> I currently find 5 people in that list of whom I'd say the have /some/
> idea of the code. And two of those already have a focus on a
> side-project/fork of OOo.
>
> So if you ask me who is on the Apache project who is not engaged in
> TDF/LO, then the only answer is: IBM.
> (But I'm also well aware that the proposal is new, and there might be
> more to come, and I'm also aware that to the apache-voting the big
> picture doesn't matter, they don't care whether it is considered a
> good idea or not. If there are enough people to run the podling and if
> IBM can convince them that it is possible to get rid of all the
> thirdparty stuff that doesn't comply with the strict licencing terms,
> they will approve it as an incubator project)
>
> And I don't really see a point in shifting this perception "now that
> nobody cares who enlists".
> IMHO you only should enlist yourself if you're really convinced that
> the Apache Foundation along with its restrictions/limitations and
> rules, esp. regarding licencing are a good idea, when you actually
> support the move.
>
> If you do, then go ahead and add yourself, I won't question your decision.
>
> The only "reason" on why the TDF should contribute is to why neooffice
> did "join" go-oo at the time: To make grabbing their code easier. But
> that is a very, very weak reason in my opinion.
>
>> So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as
>> possible.  If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating
>> the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can.
>
> What is the point? If it is run by LO people, what is the benefit of
> creating another entity instead of letting OOo be what it is (or
> better was), and instead focusing only on LibreOffice?
>
> ciao
> Christian
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discus

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Marvin, *,

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
>
> The Apache Foundation releases software only under the Apache License 2.0.
> Other entities may take ASF-released code and bundle it in products licensed
> under less permissive terms, including proprietary products and copyleft
> products.

The problem is that OOo includes quite a bit of thirdparty stuff, none
of those bein Apache-licensed and thus without a chance of being
included in the apache-project. So very likely the code that hooks
that code up into OOo will be dumped along with those external stuff
and thus it is very unclear what will be covered by the grant, and
what not. As far as I know, there is only the "intent" of Oracle to
donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear statement has been
made as to what exact sourcecode this will cover.
It's not even clear whether it will be the current codebase or some
older version IBM is basing their version on.

"The initial source will consist of a collection of OpenOffice.org
files." is more than vague about this.

And before accusing me of "bashing IBM":
I can only draw my conclusions from the very information that is
given. That is ~NULL from Oracle's side (only info is that it is even
more unclear what the situation will be regarding extensions developed
by Sun/Oracle), and a little from IBM, as they're the ones driving the
proposal.
Everyone agrees that there needs to be cleanup regarding the
thirdparty code, to meet the Apache license requirements, not not have
non-apache code around.
And I guess nobody will doubt that IBM will be doing most of this
work, maybe with a little help of Oracle. I can only assume they have
a plan about it. Newcomers will not have enough experience with the
codebase to get this done quickly/in a reasonable timeframe, and the
number of experienced people who have added themselves to the proposal
is still too small to handle without major help from the IBM devs. The
non-code contributers won't help in this task.
Now if you were IBM, would you drop your bridges that you built to
hook up the OOo-code to your product just to cleanup a different
codebase and do all the integration work again?
I doubt that.
Also by their few (as written earlier, I can only remember two)
contributions that were all based on old codelines (and thus caused
much work to integrate into OOo), at least to me it is far from clear
how/with what codebase the project will start and hence what will be
available under the Apache License.

ciao
Christian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Allen, *,

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer  wrote:
> [...]
> I don't know what vision IBM has for the project.  I don't know what code
> contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I
> don't know what they will be.  I don't know what contributions members of
> the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make.

Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press
releases, that was ended up in OOo was  basically nonexistent. As
you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can
probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before
switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip
service.

The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support

> I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation for us to get
> involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
> project.

Not really, as you first have to "surrender" to the Apache's licence
terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort.

> We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum
> benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM.
> Basically, we can get IBM working for us.

I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive
licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing?
They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working
on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to
ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the
abovementioned accessibility dump.

But before you say: It's not only IBM in the foundation. Then let me
ask: Who else is? Oracle is gone for good. The few  individual
contributers that have enlisted themselves as initial contributers on
the apache wiki are to a big extent non-coder. (Not to say that the
non-code contributors are not important, that's far from being my
point)
I currently find 5 people in that list of whom I'd say the have /some/
idea of the code. And two of those already have a focus on a
side-project/fork of OOo.

So if you ask me who is on the Apache project who is not engaged in
TDF/LO, then the only answer is: IBM.
(But I'm also well aware that the proposal is new, and there might be
more to come, and I'm also aware that to the apache-voting the big
picture doesn't matter, they don't care whether it is considered a
good idea or not. If there are enough people to run the podling and if
IBM can convince them that it is possible to get rid of all the
thirdparty stuff that doesn't comply with the strict licencing terms,
they will approve it as an incubator project)

And I don't really see a point in shifting this perception "now that
nobody cares who enlists".
IMHO you only should enlist yourself if you're really convinced that
the Apache Foundation along with its restrictions/limitations and
rules, esp. regarding licencing are a good idea, when you actually
support the move.

If you do, then go ahead and add yourself, I won't question your decision.

The only "reason" on why the TDF should contribute is to why neooffice
did "join" go-oo at the time: To make grabbing their code easier. But
that is a very, very weak reason in my opinion.

> So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as
> possible.  If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating
> the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can.

What is the point? If it is run by LO people, what is the benefit of
creating another entity instead of letting OOo be what it is (or
better was), and instead focusing only on LibreOffice?

ciao
Christian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 06:19:31PM -0400, Marc Paré wrote:
> Le 2011-06-04 17:29, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
>> I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle
>> would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache
>> and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for
>> Apache, nor for TDF.
>>
>> ciao
>> Christian
>>
>
> Could not Apache Foundation do the same thing once it got the code?

The Apache Foundation releases software only under the Apache License 2.0.
Other entities may take ASF-released code and bundle it in products licensed
under less permissive terms, including proprietary products and copyleft
products.

What the ASF will not do is take the code that came their way via the software
grant from Oracle and release it under terms that *prevent* companies like IBM
from including it in proprietary products.

Disclaimer: I participate in projects at the ASF, but I'm speaking as just
some guy on the internet trying to help everybody out.

Marvin Humphrey


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

It seems very clear that the Apache Foundation will not do that -- re-license.  
They have neither desire nor self-interest in so doing, based on what their 
high-level participants have said.

However, by reintegrating the Apache OpenOffice.org bits, LibreOffice can do it 
themselves.  It would require carefully managing the code provenance, because 
of the restructuring and patches that LibreOffice has already done.  But it can 
be done that way.  

In that respect, the sooner the Apache OpenOffice incubator has the 
OpenOffice.org someplace under the AFL 2.0 license, the sooner that is useful 
to you for your own relicensing purposes.  (I have no idea why you want MPL, 
and whether there is any clash with the patent terms in AFL 2.0, but I don't 
need to know.)

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Marc Paré [mailto:m...@marcpare.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 15:20
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Le 2011-06-04 17:29, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
> Hi *,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>>>
>>> I should think there is probably
>>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the 
>>> copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become 
>>> valuable.
>>
>> Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was 
>> neither necessary nor required.
>
> I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle 
> would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache 
> and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for 
> Apache, nor for TDF.
>
> ciao
> Christian
>

Could not Apache Foundation do the same thing once it got the code?

Cheers

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Marc Paré]

Le 2011-06-04 17:29, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :

Hi *,

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:


I should think there is probably
broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.


Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
neither necessary nor required.


I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle
would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache
and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for
Apache, nor for TDF.

ciao
Christian



Could not Apache Foundation do the same thing once it got the code?

Cheers

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi *,

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>>
>> I should think there is probably
>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
>> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
>
> Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
> neither necessary nor required.

I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle
would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache
and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for
Apache, nor for TDF.

ciao
Christian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Marvin Humphrey]

Hello,

I'm new here, and I'll only be around for a little while, but I hope it will
be a pleasant visit.

I make my living writing open source search engine software which lives at the
ASF -- Apache Lucy, an incubating project.  I was recently invited to join the
Incubator PMC and accepted, but beyond that and my position on the Apache Lucy
PPMC (Podling Project Management Committee), I don't have any special
authority within the ASF.

I have too many ongoing obligations to participate in OO.o, and have no stake
in the project.  I'm here as an individual volunteer to help everybody out by
picking the low-hanging fruit and responding to easy questions about the ASF
and the Incubator.  Don't take me for an ASF rep -- I'm just some dude on a
mailing list offering unverified info and links.

Michael Meeks wrote:

>  + if we wait, do we risk getting locked out ?  

No.  Merit will always be recognized and new committers accepted.

>  + after the incubation proposal is accepted is
>it possible to become a committer ?

Becoming a new committer prior to the acceptance of an Incubator podling
merely requires adding your name on the wiki proposal page (in this case,
).  Typically people will
also introduce themselves on the gene...@incubator.apache.org list in the
proposal discussion thread and get a "Welcome aboard!" reply from the
proposal's Champion or somebody else, but the formal requirement is being
listed in the proposal when the Incubator PMC votes on it.

After the podling gets going, you have to demonstrate merit and pass a vote
held by the PPMC, which is then ratified by a lazy consensus vote of the
Incubator PMC.

After a podling graduates and becomes a top-level Apache project, becoming a
committer requires a vote by the project's PMC.

So there is, in fact, some benefit to signing up now because the bureaucratic
hurdles are lower.  However, most podlings are eager to increase the diversity
of their committer ranks and the amount of merit you have to demonstrate
before being invited in is pretty low.  I would expect an OO.o podling to be
even more welcoming than most.

>  + will people with relevant experience, contribution and
>merit find it possible to become committers later ?

Absolutely.

You also don't need to worry about IBM or anybody else dominating the PMC and
calling the shots.  If there was ever an attempt to deny someone with merit
committership for political reasons, someone within the project would raise
the issue with the Board, and there would be hell to pay.  The Board answers
to the Members, of which there are 300-400, all participating as individuals
with a strong investment in preserving the ASF's vendor-neutral stance.

http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats

Individuals compose the ASF

All of the ASF including the board, the other officers, the committers, and 
the
members, are participating as individuals. That is one strength of the ASF,
affiliations do not cloud the personal contributions.

Unless they specifically state otherwise, whatever they post on any mailing
list is done as themselves. It is the individual point-of-view, wearing 
their
personal hat and not as a mouthpiece for whatever company happens to be 
signing
their paychecks right now, and not even as a director of the ASF.

All of those ASF people implicitly have multiple hats, especially the Board,
the other officers, and the PMC chairs. They sometimes need to talk about a
matter of policy, so to avoid appearing to be expressing a personal opinion,
they will state that they are talking in their special capacity. However, 
most
of the time this is not necessary, personal opinions work well.

Hope this helps,

Marvin Humphrey


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Ian Lynch]

On 4 June 2011 18:54, Eduardo Alexandre  wrote:

> 2011/6/4 Ian Lynch 
>
> > On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
> > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Gianluca, Allen,
> > >
> > > My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw
> analysis.
> > > Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
> > > anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle.
> > >
> >
> > Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I mean Oracle is on a get
> out
> > strategy. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it
> off
> > to someone like IBM for real dollars?
> >
>
> they did best:
> Are trying to recruit workers "volunteers" at no cost.
>

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Well it would if Oracle had some
business model based on some control over a proprietary strain of OOo but I
just don't see that. IBM yes with Symphony but I don't believe Oracle knows
how to market office productivity tools.  In any case they could just use
LibreO if that was all they wanted.

--
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>


-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [steering-discuss] Hello... and also lurking!

[Jim Jagielski]

On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:

> Hi Jim,
> 
> 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski 
> 
>> Hello!
>> 
>> I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in
>> hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and the ASF,
>> I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if you feel more comfortable
>> emailing me directly, that is fine as well.
>> 
> 
> Be sure that we are very honored with your presence here.
> I'm sure we'll do many good stuff together.
> 

Thanks, but "honored" is for sure too strong a word :)


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [steering-discuss] Hello... and also lurking!

[David Emmerich Jourdain]

Hi Jim,

2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski 

> Hello!
>
> I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in
> hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and the ASF,
> I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if you feel more comfortable
> emailing me directly, that is fine as well.
>

Be sure that we are very honored with your presence here.
I'm sure we'll do many good stuff together.

Welcome to TDF.

David


> Cheers!
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
> steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Hello... and also lurking!

[Jim Jagielski]

Hello!

I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@
in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF
and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if
you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine
as well.

Cheers!

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Sam Ruby]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>
> I should think there is probably
> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.

Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
neither necessary nor required.  What was required was a standard
Software Grant.  Once that was provided neither side has pursued it
any further.

As the Apache model is intentionally not based on Copyright
Assignment, a grant of the copyright would quickly become irrelevant
over time as people make contributions based on the terms specified in
the Individual Contributor License Agreement and in the Apache
License, Version 2.0 itself.

- Sam Ruby

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Eduardo Alexandre]

2011/6/4 Ian Lynch 

> On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
> charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Gianluca, Allen,
> >
> > My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
> > Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
> > anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle.
> >
>
> Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I mean Oracle is on a get out
> strategy. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off
> to someone like IBM for real dollars?
>

they did best:
Are trying to recruit workers "volunteers" at no cost.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE : Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Charles-H. Schulz]

Ian,

I'm not questionning the intent, I observe an interesting legal feature that
I believe people should be aware of.

Best,
Charles.

Le 4 juin 2011, 7:34 PM, "Ian Lynch"  a écrit :

On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <

charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > Gianluca, Allen, > > My
doubt comes from the articl...
Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I mean Oracle is on a get out
strategy. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off
to someone like IBM for real dollars? To a corporate something has value if
they see potential to make money out of it and neither Sun nor Oracle really
did. Ok, Oracle will still own the copyright but in effect the Apache
license means its pretty much a token.  I should think there is probably
broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.

Best, > > charles. > > Le 4 juin 2011, 6:26 PM, "Gianluca Turconi" <
pub...@letturefantastiche.com> ...
> discuss+help@documentfoundation.orgPosting guidelines + more: h...

> > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org

> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >
List archive: http://li...

-- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ
www.theINGOTs.org+44 (0)1827 305940 ...

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org

Posting guidelines + more:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/NetiquetteList archive:
http://listar...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Ian Lynch]

On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Gianluca, Allen,
>
> My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
> Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
> anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle.
>

Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid? I mean Oracle is on a get out
strategy. If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off
to someone like IBM for real dollars? To a corporate something has value if
they see potential to make money out of it and neither Sun nor Oracle really
did. Ok, Oracle will still own the copyright but in effect the Apache
license means its pretty much a token.  I should think there is probably
broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.

Best,
>
> charles.
>
> Le 4 juin 2011, 6:26 PM, "Gianluca Turconi" 
> a
> écrit :
>
> In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:14:16, Allen Pulsifer <
> pulsi...@openoffice.org> ha scritto:
>
> > 1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to
> distribute > the OpenOffice co...
> Is it sure is a license? In Apache list were talking about tax deductions
> for a *donation*.
>
> Are we talking about a *future* and only *possible* donation? Well, if so,
> this seems strange. :)
>
> I would have called it "vaporware", but I respect Apache too much to think
> so.
>
> Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di
> fantascienza, fantasy, h...
>
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
> discuss+help@documentfoundation.orgPosting guidelines + more: h...
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>


-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Pantelis Koukousoulas]

2011/6/4 Jesús Corrius :
> As if understanding and using the "old" OOo build mechanisms which have been
> somewhat adapted at LO wasn't hard enough.

As a user (with just a tiny contribution) I really wish that OO.o
would just die already.

It is not "just" that the current community are much more friendly and
open to contributions
now, it is also the codebase that is starting to become more sane and
organized / accessible.

In a while, it may even build without requiring your own Cray
supercomputer and two PhDs.
Why would people want to go back to the java-dominated "obscure build
system land" that
has cost so much to the project already?

With TDF I think LibreOffice can make the equivalent of Netscape ->
Firefox transition.
For me the sane thing for ASF is to either donate the OO.o
name/trademarks in turn to
TDF, so that maybe we can have the equivalent of gcc -> egcs -> gcc
migration and
the existing marketing efforts for OO.org don't go to waste, or just
drop the whole thing
and let it die in peace.

I hope even IBM can see the light and start contributing to
LibreOffice instead of
trying to maintain the ugly beast that was OO.o on its own, or trying
to divide the
community (and thus generating bad publicity for both IBM and Oracle in the end,
see LWN).

Go Libre Office! We users love you! :) :)

---
Pantelis

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Gianluca Turconi]

In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:41:23, Ian Lynch   
ha scritto:


Agreed, the IBM proprietary product would be a different beast from LO.  
But
let's face it there are already many OOo variants out there. I don't  
think

that changes that much. I think Michael's point about which code
contributions are effectively blocked to which developers is the more
difficult one. Personally I know this is a mess  but making it less of a
mess through cooperation seems a better route than trying to achieve
something unachievable.


Uhm, I can't speak for the developers and about how much collaboration  
there can be among the two projects, but can I say that, though Oracle's  
decision to license/donate code is perfectly legitimate, this specific  
proposal to join Apache OpenOffice appears like the attempt of a start-up  
corporation to do "shopping for employees with the right know-how" in  
another corporation that works in the same market?


I think it's difficult, now, to improve the situation, because the right  
thing to do for a reunification would have been to release the code under  
its normal and usually used *copyleft* license.


The license change is a pain in the neck for the users too, because they  
may lose several features they are used to and that are covered by  
copyleft licenses.


What a *community* product can you have in this way?

Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,  
horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:  
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Michael Meeks]

Hi Greg,

First - welcome to the list :-) we appreciate more hackers taking an
interest in LibreOffice of course and really good to have you here.
Patches most welcome too BTW :-)

On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 00:21 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> Sure... I can also answer questions, and would be more than happy to
> do that. In any discussion threads that may pop up, about the Apache
> work, I'll also attempt to fill in blanks where I see them.

Great - there is quite a big one here; Rob's blog's characterisation of
Apache (pwrt. the advantages of 'getting in on the ground floor') has
been interpreted by many as ASF rewarding people who join early
disproportionately to their merit (as and against new people joining
'late') :-) I don't think that is Apache's intention or practise. Alan
picked up on earlier on the list with (excerpted):

On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 09:08 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation for us to get
> involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
> project.
 ...
> If we wait however, we risk being locked out.  The open invitation is get
> involved is only valid for during the incubation proposal stage.  After
> that, we will need "prove our merit" and approval to become a member.  So if
> you sign up now, it is no risk and no obligation.
 ...
> But the time to jump in is now.  We can't wait. 

So the questions are:

+ if we wait, do we risk getting locked out ?
+ after the incubation proposal is accepted is
  it possible to become a committer ?
+ will people with relevant experience, contribution and
  merit find it possible to become committers later ?

You see my answers on the list - I think Apache stays open and does it
right, as a meritocracy, always :-) but it'd be good to back that with
your authority and clear this up. The ground-floor stuff it seems can
easily be twisted into a threat to exclude people that don't join day
one :-)

Thanks,

Michael.

-- 
 michael.me...@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE : Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Charles-H. Schulz]

Yes.

Charles.

Le 4 juin 2011, 6:37 PM, "Gianluca Turconi"  a
écrit :

In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:33:26, Charles-H. Schulz <
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> ha scritto:

> My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
I'm reading the Groklaw article right now. is this

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011060314010442

isn't it?

Regards,

Gianluca
-- 

Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,
horror, noir, narrativa fa...

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org

Posting guidelines + more:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/NetiquetteList archive:
http://listar...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Ian Lynch]

On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconi wrote:

> In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 17:59:04, Ian Lynch 
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those
>> with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code
>> don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself. It
>> seems inevitable that there will be a copyleft product overseen by TDF and
>> an ASF licensed product.
>>
>
> Is it sure there will be a *product*?
>

I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there
will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum.

>
> That's rather important, because who uses the Apache license is usually
> interested in having a *project* that is a rather different beast. ;-)


Agreed, the IBM proprietary product would be a different beast from LO. But
let's face it there are already many OOo variants out there. I don't think
that changes that much. I think Michael's point about which code
contributions are effectively blocked to which developers is the more
difficult one. Personally I know this is a mess  but making it less of a
mess through cooperation seems a better route than trying to achieve
something unachievable.
-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Gianluca Turconi]

In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:33:26, Charles-H. Schulz  
 ha scritto:



My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.


I'm reading the Groklaw article right now. is this

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011060314010442

isn't it?

Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,  
horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:  
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Charles-H. Schulz]

Gianluca, Allen,

My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle.

Best,

charles.

Le 4 juin 2011, 6:26 PM, "Gianluca Turconi"  a
écrit :

In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:14:16, Allen Pulsifer <
pulsi...@openoffice.org> ha scritto:

> 1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to
distribute > the OpenOffice co...
Is it sure is a license? In Apache list were talking about tax deductions
for a *donation*.

Are we talking about a *future* and only *possible* donation? Well, if so,
this seems strange. :)

I would have called it "vaporware", but I respect Apache too much to think
so.

Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di
fantascienza, fantasy, h...

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
discuss+help@documentfoundation.orgPosting guidelines + more: h...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Gianluca Turconi]

In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 17:59:04, Ian Lynch   
ha scritto:



That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those
with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code
don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself.  
It
seems inevitable that there will be a copyleft product overseen by TDF  
and

an ASF licensed product.


Is it sure there will be a *product*?

That's rather important, because who uses the Apache license is usually  
interested in having a *project* that is a rather different beast. ;-)


Regards,

Gianluca

--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,  
horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:  
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Gianluca Turconi]

In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:14:16, Allen Pulsifer  
 ha scritto:


1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to  
distribute

the OpenOffice code under the Apache License.  (To answer the question
Charles just posted, Oracle has retained ownership of the copyrights, and
granted the ASF a license.)


Is it sure is a license? In Apache list were talking about tax deductions  
for a *donation*.


Are we talking about a *future* and only *possible* donation? Well, if so,  
this seems strange. :)


I would have called it "vaporware", but I respect Apache too much to think  
so.


Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,  
horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:  
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Gianluca Turconi]

In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:06:34, Charles-H. Schulz  
 ha scritto:


Apologies for top posting, I'm on my phone. Perhaps did I get confused  
for a

moment but I hear that Oracle will in fact retain the copyright on the
Openoffice codebase


I've read in the Apache list that Oracle will retain the OOo brand  
ownership, *for the time being* and Apache F. has an agreement for its use.


About the code, Apache F. should have the ownership according to their  
usual agreements for contributions.


Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,  
horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:  
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Ian Lynch]

On 4 June 2011 16:47, Zaphod Feeblejocks  wrote:

> Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go
> to
> Apache and say "Please let us have that?"
>

It's a good question. I suspect not now - OOo is not yet even accepted into
the incubator at Apache. Depends on what Oracle lawyers built into any
conditions. It could be possible later down the line but I doubt it would be
very sensible for someone at Apache to broadcast that intention in earshot
of oracle ;-)

Oracle are code-dumping because the community left them standing alone.
> Oracle are acting as generous benefactors but may end up splitting the OS
> community over this one.  We do not need two near-identical office suites.
> The duplication in effort is not worth it.
>

That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those
with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code
don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself. It
seems inevitable that there will be a copyleft product overseen by TDF and
an ASF licensed product. Question is whether we can cooperate effectively
enough to keep the code mostly common. Honest answer is I'm not sure but I
don't see any alternative.

The option of LibO becoming a customised build of Apache OO, where we take
> from them and add our own things becomes a maintenance nightmare.  LibO 3.4
> already has enough clear differences from OOo 3.4 that make the idea of
> moving code modules back and forth difficult.  There will be a lot of
> re-engineering simply to keep things working and much potential to
> introduce
> bugs.
>

So life is complicated ;-)

>
> >From a marketing point of view, the appearance of yet another OpenOffice
> is
> not helpful.  We now have OpenOffice.org, Star Office, Oracle Open Office,
> BrOffice, Go-oo, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Symphony, NeoOffice, Euro Office
> and, of course, LibreOffice.


Some would say that was a benefit of open source - at least they all are
100% odf compliant.


>  At least when everything else was a build of
> OOo with some addons, it could be understood.  When TDF was set up, it was
> a
> case of everything else being a build of LibO with addons, plus
> OpenOffice.org - and we hoped either Oracle would code-dump in our
> direction, or just go away.
>
> When TDF was set up, there was an invitation to Oracle to take part.  They
> declined.  This invitation should be passed on to Apache.  They don't need
> the hassle of maintaining a parallel project - especially one that the
> wider
> community has dropped.
>

I suppose that it might be possible to persuade Apache to just allow the
code to die and carry on from the LO code base - probably that loses IBM
(some will say that is a good thing) - but I can't really see that happening
in the short term because IBM and others will support that code and Apache
has no remit to deny one project over another.

>
> ZF
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>


-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Allen Pulsifer]

> Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go
to Apache and say "Please let us have that?"

Hello Zaphod,

There are two pieces to Oracle's donation:

1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to distribute
the OpenOffice code under the Apache License.  (To answer the question
Charles just posted, Oracle has retained ownership of the copyrights, and
granted the ASF a license.)

2. Oracle has granted the ASF permission to use the OpenOffice.org
trademark, and has indicated that it will eventually transfer ownership of
that trademark and the openoffice.org internet domain to the ASF.

Just addressing the code, yes, the TDF can take all of the code under the
Apache License, so that part is done.

I think what you are saying though is this: Can we ask the ASF to not go
forward with an Apache OpenOffice project that is licensed under the Apache
License.  The answer is that we can ask and that has been asked.  The
sentiment over at the ASF is that they see value in having an Apache
Licensed project.  With an Apache Licensed project, anyone downstream can
use the code, including TDF, IBM, or anyone else, and they can use it for
open source or closed source derivatives.  That is essentially the ASF's
mission in life.  They are a USA recognized charity (a 501(3)(c), I
believe), that is dedicated to producing software that is free for virtually
any use.  So it is my understanding that having accepted the donation from
Oracle, their preference is to do ahead and convert the code to the Apache
License, so that the core ODF functionality and any other important and
valuable technologies can be adopted into as many projects as possible, both
open source and commercial.  They are welcoming anyone to participate in
that who has an interested in OpenOffice, ODF, free software, etc.  They
have no problem with the TDF using any code that the project produces, and
they welcome contributions from any TDF members, whether they want to
contribute individually or as a group.

That is my understanding.

Allen



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Charles-H. Schulz]

Hello everyone,

Apologies for top posting, I'm on my phone. Perhaps did I get confused for a
moment but I hear that Oracle will in fact retain the copyright on the
Openoffice codebase. Anyone can infirm/confirm?

Best,
Charles.

Le 4 juin 2011, 5:59 PM, "Eduardo Alexandre"  a
écrit :

Oracle has rejected the invitation e. .. passed the code to Apache!
Something motivated move to Apache and not to TDF.

The invitation for Oracle can be done for the Apache?
If yes, could be on the condition of maintaining a software under the GPL?



Eduardo Alexandre

2011/6/4 Zaphod Feeblejocks  > Is it possible to allow
Oracle to donate to A...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Michael Meeks]

Hi Allen,

On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 09:08 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> If we wait however, we risk being locked out.

That is what Rob's blog tries to imply. My conversations with various
key Apache leaders suggest that, on the contrary, their governance will
-never- lock people out; it is guaranteed to be open to all
contributors. Ergo - there will always be a place for new guys to be
come committers, PMC members etc.

Indeed, the incubation cannot succeed without a level of diversity that
only LibreOffice has currently.

> So if you sign up now, it is no risk and no obligation.

The risk is, that we give credibility to an incredibly divisive move,
and loose the clarity and unity we have currently around rejecting this
hostile action :-) Beyond that I agree.

> They will be contributing some, and holding back some to use only
> in their proprietary products.  The TDF community can do exactly
> the same thing--it can contribute some, while holding back some
> for LibreOffice only.

The problem is, that very much of our work is inter-dependent, and we
want people to be able to work all over the code, cleaning, translating
and fixing it. It would suck giant rocks (through a straw) to say:

"no copy-left lovers need think of working on X Y or Z
 big pieces of the code - since we want to license
 changes to these on to IBM (via Apache)" :-)

At least - I don't want to just push the division down into the
code-base, excluding people from lots of it (and of course throwing away
our changes to those pieces).

> So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the
> table as possible.  If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice
> people dominating the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much
> out of the project as we can.

My feeling is that incubator / 'initial committers' lists aside, the
people doing the work will get the positions of authority: whatever Rob
suggests to try to encourage people to sign up now.

> But the time to jump in is now.  We can't wait.

I have entirely the opposite view; it would be unfortunate to get
involved now - and send an unhelpful message; still - everyone should do
as they think best.

Thanks :-)

Michael.

-- 
 michael.me...@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Eduardo Alexandre]

Oracle has rejected the invitation e. .. passed the code to Apache!
Something motivated move to Apache and not to TDF.

The invitation for Oracle can be done for the Apache?
If yes, could be on the condition of maintaining a software under the GPL?



Eduardo Alexandre



2011/6/4 Zaphod Feeblejocks 

> Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go
> to
> Apache and say "Please let us have that?"
>
> Oracle are code-dumping because the community left them standing alone.
> Oracle are acting as generous benefactors but may end up splitting the OS
> community over this one.  We do not need two near-identical office suites.
> The duplication in effort is not worth it.
>
> The option of LibO becoming a customised build of Apache OO, where we take
> from them and add our own things becomes a maintenance nightmare.  LibO 3.4
> already has enough clear differences from OOo 3.4 that make the idea of
> moving code modules back and forth difficult.  There will be a lot of
> re-engineering simply to keep things working and much potential to
> introduce
> bugs.
>
> >From a marketing point of view, the appearance of yet another OpenOffice
> is
> not helpful.  We now have OpenOffice.org, Star Office, Oracle Open Office,
> BrOffice, Go-oo, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Symphony, NeoOffice, Euro Office
> and, of course, LibreOffice.  At least when everything else was a build of
> OOo with some addons, it could be understood.  When TDF was set up, it was
> a
> case of everything else being a build of LibO with addons, plus
> OpenOffice.org - and we hoped either Oracle would code-dump in our
> direction, or just go away.
>
> When TDF was set up, there was an invitation to Oracle to take part.  They
> declined.  This invitation should be passed on to Apache.  They don't need
> the hassle of maintaining a parallel project - especially one that the
> wider
> community has dropped.
>
> ZF
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Zaphod Feeblejocks]

Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go to
Apache and say "Please let us have that?"

Oracle are code-dumping because the community left them standing alone.
Oracle are acting as generous benefactors but may end up splitting the OS
community over this one.  We do not need two near-identical office suites.
The duplication in effort is not worth it.

The option of LibO becoming a customised build of Apache OO, where we take
from them and add our own things becomes a maintenance nightmare.  LibO 3.4
already has enough clear differences from OOo 3.4 that make the idea of
moving code modules back and forth difficult.  There will be a lot of
re-engineering simply to keep things working and much potential to introduce
bugs.

>From a marketing point of view, the appearance of yet another OpenOffice is
not helpful.  We now have OpenOffice.org, Star Office, Oracle Open Office,
BrOffice, Go-oo, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Symphony, NeoOffice, Euro Office
and, of course, LibreOffice.  At least when everything else was a build of
OOo with some addons, it could be understood.  When TDF was set up, it was a
case of everything else being a build of LibO with addons, plus
OpenOffice.org - and we hoped either Oracle would code-dump in our
direction, or just go away.

When TDF was set up, there was an invitation to Oracle to take part.  They
declined.  This invitation should be passed on to Apache.  They don't need
the hassle of maintaining a parallel project - especially one that the wider
community has dropped.

ZF

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Timothy Mark Brennan Jr.]

Hi Everyone,
This is my first post on this discussion list.  I am not into the deep 
things of licensing, but I have kept an eye open to understand it 
better.  This discussion list is helping me understand the whole 
situation better.

I may be wrong in my opinion, so I am open to change.
I believe that a completely open source project like this one is 
necessary to keep things clear.  By this, I mean, that keeping a 
licensing model clearly open source where businesses will not be 
benefitting without contributing is important.
By setting a contrast with the two extremes - proprietary/OpenSource - 
it helps me to understand the whole concept better.  If we keep 
LibreOffice as it is, in my opinion, will be better.  It will represent 
the extreme end of the spectrum helping keep tensions up so that the 
in-between licensing models will have something to base themselves on 
(i.e. Apache, etc.).

Conclusion: I vote for LibreOffice to remain as it is.
I have not wanted to post before as I needed to get a little more 
familiar with this community.  Since then I have noticed that various 
kinds of comments are made freely on this forum, so I am feeling more at 
liberty (LIBRE!!!) to comment.

Please correct me if I am wrong,

regards to all
timotheonb


Em 04-06-2011 11:21, Simos Xenitellis escreveu:

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eduardo Alexandre  wrote:

Hi,

In my opinion, after all history involving OpenOffice, the ideal would be that
this code was donated to the TDF. Everything under the GPL.

With the software under the Apache license, we can not "work directly" in
LibreOffice because they can not use our effort due to license GPL-Apache.

Thus, we must direct our efforts to the software under the Apache license
and "reuse" what we want to LibreOffice.

But it will also allow our volunteer work is used by large companies to "create
" an unopened product for sale. We will be working for free.

This is interesting? What is the advantage for the "community"?



IBM already has an OpenOffice product called IBM Lotus Symphony,
http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
Although based on OpenOffice, it is closed-source due to a special
deal with Sun.
If you try to download it, you are presented with a typical restricting EULA.

I believe that IBM, pushing for Apache OpenOffice, want to get the
best of the work of the community in order to enhance their product,
and start selling to business customers.
IBM employees claimed that they will make parts of Lotus Symphony
available to Apache OpenOffice, however it is not clear what is in
Lotus Symphony and what will make it into Apache OpenOffice.

With Apache OpenOffice, IBM would probably get an unfair advantage to
sell their proprietary OpenOffice. And this would be bad for the
community.

Just like the Linux kernel is copyleft (GPL) and everyone contributes
to a single project, OpenOffice/LibreOffice should be copyleft, so
that all work goes to one place and is able grow fast.

Simos




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Gianluca Turconi]

Simos Xenitellis ha scritto:

Just like the Linux kernel is copyleft (GPL) and everyone contributes
to a single project, OpenOffice/LibreOffice should be copyleft, so
that all work goes to one place and is able grow fast.


BTW, LibreOffice code is even *LGPL*/MPL, enough corporation friendly, I 
suppose. :-)


Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eduardo Alexandre  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my opinion, after all history involving OpenOffice, the ideal would be that
> this code was donated to the TDF. Everything under the GPL.
>
> With the software under the Apache license, we can not "work directly" in
> LibreOffice because they can not use our effort due to license GPL-Apache.
>
> Thus, we must direct our efforts to the software under the Apache license
> and "reuse" what we want to LibreOffice.
>
> But it will also allow our volunteer work is used by large companies to 
> "create
> " an unopened product for sale. We will be working for free.
>
> This is interesting? What is the advantage for the "community"?
>

IBM already has an OpenOffice product called IBM Lotus Symphony,
http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
Although based on OpenOffice, it is closed-source due to a special
deal with Sun.
If you try to download it, you are presented with a typical restricting EULA.

I believe that IBM, pushing for Apache OpenOffice, want to get the
best of the work of the community in order to enhance their product,
and start selling to business customers.
IBM employees claimed that they will make parts of Lotus Symphony
available to Apache OpenOffice, however it is not clear what is in
Lotus Symphony and what will make it into Apache OpenOffice.

With Apache OpenOffice, IBM would probably get an unfair advantage to
sell their proprietary OpenOffice. And this would be bad for the
community.

Just like the Linux kernel is copyleft (GPL) and everyone contributes
to a single project, OpenOffice/LibreOffice should be copyleft, so
that all work goes to one place and is able grow fast.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Eduardo Alexandre]

2011/6/4 Gianluca Turconi 

> Yes, there may be coordination between TDF and Apache OOo development ("I
> give you something, you give me something"), but a direct contribution to
> Apache OOo is rather risky ("I give you something and... ehi, you have no
> duty to give me something back!" according to AFL v. 2.0).
>
> That isn't, really, what I want from a *free software* project.
>
> Plain and simple. :)
>


+1
o/

Eduardo Alexandre

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Gianluca Turconi]

Allen Pulsifer ha scritto:

So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as
possible.  If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating
the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can.


Firstly, I've to say that I'm happy Oracle hasn't killed OOo and *will* 
donate even its brand to Apache Foundation.


Then, as a volunteer, I simply see a duplication of efforts for whatever 
TDF volunteers in this proposal.


What TDF can get for Apache project, it can be already taken thanks to 
Apache License 2.0.


Any further contribution to that project has really no sense from a TDF 
volunteer's point of view. Especially if the volunteer is not a developer.


Yes, there may be coordination between TDF and Apache OOo development 
("I give you something, you give me something"), but a direct 
contribution to Apache OOo is rather risky ("I give you something and... 
ehi, you have no duty to give me something back!" according to AFL v. 2.0).


That isn't, really, what I want from a *free software* project.

Plain and simple. :)

Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Eduardo Alexandre]

Hi,

In my opinion, after all history involving OpenOffice, the ideal would be that
this code was donated to the TDF. Everything under the GPL.

With the software under the Apache license, we can not "work directly" in
LibreOffice because they can not use our effort due to license GPL-Apache.

Thus, we must direct our efforts to the software under the Apache license
and "reuse" what we want to LibreOffice.

But it will also allow our volunteer work is used by large companies to "create
" an unopened product for sale. We will be working for free.

This is interesting? What is the advantage for the "community"?

I think the "TDF members" could express any comment with the positives and
negatives points.



Eduardo Alexandre Gula

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Allen Pulsifer]

Hello All,

I'm going to try to address as many of the concerns raised as I can in one
email.

I'm not suggesting that anyone go work for IBM.  In fact, I'm suggesting
just the opposite; I'm suggesting that we all work together to get IBM
working for us.

Here's the deal.  IBM is the main proponent of the proposed Apache
OpenOffice project.  They are doing this in their own self-interest.  They
want to get Apache Licensed contributions that they can use in their
proprietary products.

However, the OpenOffice code has been donated to the Apache Software
Foundation, not to IBM.  While IBM may want to exclusively run the project
over at the ASF, if we want to get involved, the ASF is not going to allow
IBM to dominate.  We will have a say in how the Apache OpenOffice project
evolves.

I don't know what vision IBM has for the project.  I don't know what code
contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I
don't know what they will be.  I don't know what contributions members of
the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make.

I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation for us to get
involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
project.  We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum
benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM.
Basically, we can get IBM working for us.

If we wait however, we risk being locked out.  The open invitation is get
involved is only valid for during the incubation proposal stage.  After
that, we will need "prove our merit" and approval to become a member.  So if
you sign up now, it is no risk and no obligation.  IBM will be contributing
as little or as much to the project as they want.  They will be contributing
some, and holding back some to use only in their proprietary products.  The
TDF community can do exactly the same thing--it can contribute some, while
holding back some for LibreOffice only.  This again can and will be worked
out as the project evolves.

So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as
possible.  If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating
the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can.

But the time to jump in is now.  We can't wait.

Allen



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Gianluca Turconi]

Michael Münch ha scritto:

So for me to join the proposal feels like becoming one of the worst paid
IBM employees.


BTW, there would be some concerns about what kind of community will be 
the new Apache OpenOffice one too. At least, I have them.


A development community, as I suppose, or a end users' community too?

I was there, in 2000/1, when Sun had many doubts about releasing a open 
source *product* in binary form.


Now, I feel we're at the same point under a Apache license. None, but 
the Community (What community?), would have a *real* interest in 
releasing a full featured open source *product* in binary form.


Maybe, I'm wrong. Maybe, I'm not.

Regards,

Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Michael Münch]

Hi, 


Am Samstag, den 04.06.2011, 01:30 -0600 schrieb Tor Lillqvist:
> > So here is my suggestion: I propose the everyone here head over to the
> > Apache Incubator and join the proposal as an initial member.  
> 
> Well, at least for me the problem is:
> 
> I *work* on LibreOffice.

although I am not a real contributor to LibreOffice so that my decisions
do not make a difference here are some of my thoughts from a completely
different perspective.

I am not paid by anyone in this field, I have no interested in going
that road, I have no business around Office Suites, do not offer
trainings or am engaged in any consulting.

So every minute I spend on LibreOffice is because of fun with no hard
revenue in sight and if it is for fun at least for me it is important
with whom to work together.

Do I trust the TDF/SC? uff, kind of 
Do I trust the ASF? absolutely
Do I trust Novell/RedHat/Canonical/.. a bit
Do I trust IBM? ...
Do I trust Oracle? absolutely not

The nice thing about the LGPL and copyleft is that it lowers the need
for trusting the other involved parties.

As I have no history with the OO.o project, I may not be correct, but I
miss IBMs enthusiastic approach to a free software office suite
extending what they need to develop symphony on that base. I guess they
could have released a lot of patches under the apache license if they
were just reluctant to the LGPL. So I have some doubts that the level
between what to put in the core office, the new apache openoffice, and
what to keep only for their closed source product on top of it is much
in favor of the apache part.

And I feel like it is not only important what the actual situation is
(an ASF incubator proposal) but even more so how it got there. The
situation would have been totally different for me if the OO.o community
council would have approached the ASF and made this proposal and after
that Oracle would have agreed and IBM hopped in. This would have been
community driven. This smells like some corporate business plan with a
nice apache painting.

The situation now is that Oracle and IBM did some deal behind closed
doors, where I am pretty sure their arguments and expectations to decide
going to the ASF are not identical with what is written on the ASF wiki.
Although this is the unfortunate situation that you can hardly prove it
the one way or the other.

So for me to join the proposal feels like becoming one of the worst paid
IBM employees.

But whatever, the ball is already rolling and everything will go the way
it has to go. We will see the result in some months/years.

And yeah, everyone will decide different depending on who pays him, what
if any personal business interests he has in the office field, his
political/ideological vision or just his gut feeling. Nothing wrong with
that and nothing to try to change or influence.

Regards,
Michael


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Eduardo Alexandre]

Hi!

If I understand correctly:
What is developed by the Apache license can be "used" at LibreOffice but
what is done by LibreOffice can not be used by OpenOffice as OpenOffice
would move to offer the principles of under the GPL.

Thus, the suggestion would be to join efforts to OpenOffice under the Apache
License and "used" what we want to use LibreOffice GPL?

Am I wrong or so workers would be free for companies that want to "pack "
the OpenOffice and sell it?

I would understand this point...

Greats,

Eduardo Alexandre Gula
LibreOffice Brazil



2011/6/4 Jesús Corrius 

> > And finally, whether it would make any sense from the technical point of
> view for LibreOffice contributors to even try to participate in OOo at ASF
> depends very much on what actually ends up there, and in what direction it
> is taken by the presumed main driving force, IBM. For all we know, it might
> be that the code that is eventually dumped in ASF's SVN (!) is a subset that
> doesn't even build, and then IBM starts adding its own hitherto proprietary
> stuff including build mechanisms that makes it into a completely different
> beast than what we are used to. I suspect lots of Java is involved, and that
> is not necessarily that popular around here. As if understanding and using
> the "old" OOo build mechanisms which have been somewhat adapted at LO wasn't
> hard enough.
>
> Good point, Tor. Is the source code available somewhere already?
> I wouldn't join any Open Source project if I can't see the source code
> first :)
>
> --
> Jesús Corrius 
> Document Foundation founding member
> Mobile: +34 661 11 38 26
> Skype: jcorrius | Twitter: @jcorrius
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Tor Lillqvist]

> So here is my suggestion: I propose the everyone here head over to the
> Apache Incubator and join the proposal as an initial member.  

Well, at least for me the problem is:

I *work* on LibreOffice. I f I wasn't paid to do it, I doubt I would touch it. 
Or maybe I would, hard to know. As far as I have understood, "membership" in 
ASF poslings/projects (or in the organisation itself) is for *individuals*. I 
am strongly opposed to the idea that my employer would force me to join some 
organisation. That is against basic human rights. (That holds for TDF, too.)

And the other way, even if I wanted to contribute to the eventual OOo podling 
at ASF, and then later presumably OOo project (or whatever the term is for what 
a podling becomes when it graduates), I obviously can't contribute stuff that I 
have done on my employer's time to which my employer holds copyright. Or can I? 
I am not a lawyer nor do I have any wish to get involved in legal battles.

And finally, whether it would make any sense from the technical point of view 
for LibreOffice contributors to even try to participate in OOo at ASF depends 
very much on what actually ends up there, and in what direction it is taken by 
the presumed main driving force, IBM. For all we know, it might be that the 
code that is eventually dumped in ASF's SVN (!) is a subset that doesn't even 
build, and then IBM starts adding its own hitherto proprietary stuff including 
build mechanisms that makes it into a completely different beast than what we 
are used to. I suspect lots of Java is involved, and that is not necessarily 
that popular around here. As if understanding and using the "old" OOo build 
mechanisms which have been somewhat adapted at LO wasn't hard enough.

--tml



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Hello! ... and lurking :-)

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, then please feel
> free to direct them my way (on whatever list). I'm here to listen and
> understand, and to offer up answers where I can.

I have a question:
Why would Apache contemplate helping IBM pull a Jenkins/Hudson on us,
fragmenting the license of a project that has been with a uniform
licensing so far ?
(Oracle could merge our changes... they elected _not_ to do so because they
wanted a Copyright assignment on top of the code, but that was not
a licensing incompatibility)

You (Apache) are lending your good name to a nasty endeavor, for the
benefit of a company
that has an history of screwing you over (Harmony ?)

Ironically what seems to be happening at Apache is very reminiscent to
me to the ISO/MSXML debacle...
Some corporation exploiting the letter of your governance to better
abuse the spirit of it.
(that is _if_ I understand what Apache stand for... but maybe I'm misguided)

Norbert

PS: I strongly encourage you to read:
http://www.itworld.com/software/170521/big-winner-apache-openofficeorg#comment-9942111
That shed a very illuminating light on IBM's involvement in OOo, and
why it is hard to take seriously their grandiose promises... that
would by far not been the first time, and there is no reason to
believe that the outcome will be any different this time around...
except that both the OpenOffice brand and the Apache reputation will
be tarnished in the process...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: Include country in the list of members

[plino]

Hi Eduardo

I suggested a similar idea at the Users list but was told that the Website
list is the correct place

http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/TDF-Novos-membros-em-31-05-2011-tp3021079p3021079.html

Maybe you can do that ;)

Abraço do outro lado do Atlântico ;)

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Include-country-in-the-list-of-members-tp3021895p3022749.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Jesús Corrius]

> And finally, whether it would make any sense from the technical point of view 
> for LibreOffice contributors to even try to participate in OOo at ASF depends 
> very much on what actually ends up there, and in what direction it is taken 
> by the presumed main driving force, IBM. For all we know, it might be that 
> the code that is eventually dumped in ASF's SVN (!) is a subset that doesn't 
> even build, and then IBM starts adding its own hitherto proprietary stuff 
> including build mechanisms that makes it into a completely different beast 
> than what we are used to. I suspect lots of Java is involved, and that is not 
> necessarily that popular around here. As if understanding and using the "old" 
> OOo build mechanisms which have been somewhat adapted at LO wasn't hard 
> enough.

Good point, Tor. Is the source code available somewhere already?
I wouldn't join any Open Source project if I can't see the source code first :)

-- 
Jesús Corrius 
Document Foundation founding member
Mobile: +34 661 11 38 26
Skype: jcorrius | Twitter: @jcorrius

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted