Re: A little OOo history

Danese Cooper wrote on 06/07/2011 02:19:38 PM: > > Just have to say...I have often been quoted saying the advent of > OpenOffice.org was a rare case of "corporate greed aligning with > human need". Safe to assume a high percentage of downloaders don't > have $.99. I know we're all excited by

Re: A little OOo history

Leo Simons wrote on 06/07/2011 02:40:01 PM: > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, wrote: > > Since this is a large download, I wonder whether the quoted numbers are > > impacted at all by timeouts, abandoned downloads attempts, etc. In other > > words, is it counting the HTTP GET's? Or the s

RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

Simon Phipps wrote: > unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely > substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same > code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the > context of actual shared repositories. That sounds like

Re: A little OOo history

Leo Simons wrote: You know, there is this large and interesting community of maintainers of mirrors of open source software. A fair share of them are your typical beard stroking [1] uber experienced unix [2] system administrators who maintain a local mirror for their company / campus / ISP mos

RE: A little OOo history

> It seems Apache will have a destination of value in OpenOffice.org. There > should be a way to monetize this, similar to how Mozilla monetized their > default search engine choice with Google. That'll spawn a whole other set of debates. > For example, ASF could take bids and award a contracts

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: > > > unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely > > substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same > > code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be

Re: Request: Can "proposed committers" introduce themselves?

Hi all, I'm Carl Marcum. Independent Java developer. Lately I have been doing custom OOo installations and extensions for a client. I look forward to helping out with the project where ever I can. Best regards, Carl Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > >> Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> > unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely >> > substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same >> >

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman > wrote: > > > >> Simon Phipps wrote: > >> > >> > unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do > extremely > >> > substanti

Re: Happy happy joy joy

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Guys, if we are going to argue over the mistakes of the pasts > and the slights of the past, quite frankly, we aren't going to > get very far. > > This is supposed to be a happy occasion; let's not bicker > and argue about who-killed-who... :)

Re: A little OOo history

robert_w...@us.ibm.com: Not surprisingly, you missed my point (or chose to ignore it). We at Apache don't think that money is evil, but we also believe that seeing our code in wide use is more important than money. OpenOffice.org is important to the Developing World, some of whom will pay for c

RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

Simon Phipps wrote: > I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome would > be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial push-back > from some quarters. So let's address the push-back. The proposal, as I understand it, is for OpenOffice to exist at

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: > >> I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome > would >> be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial > push-back >> from some quarters. > > So let's address the push-ba

Re: A little OOo history

Op 7-6-2011 18:31, William A. Rowe Jr. schreef: On 6/7/2011 11:11 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Just to clarify, only source code is "released" by the ASF. Yes, there may I don't believe this is true - we have to release the source, but

Re: A little OOo history

Danese Cooper wrote on 06/07/2011 03:43:56 PM: > > robert_w...@us.ibm.com: > > Not surprisingly, you missed my point (or chose to ignore it). We at Honestly, your insult does surprise me. > Apache don't think that money is evil, but we also believe that > seeing our code in wide use is more

RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

Sam Ruby wrote: > my suggestion is that we not focus on the differences we have. > Let's instead focus on how we can maximize the areas we have > in common. Isn't that what: > > Core development would happen at the ASF. Everyone: IBMer, TDFer, and > > other alike would be welcomed to contribute

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: > >> my suggestion is that we not focus on the differences we have. >> Let's instead focus on how we can maximize the areas we have >> in common. > > Isn't that what: > >> > Core development would happen at the ASF.  Everyone

Re: A little OOo history

On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: > The OpenOffice.org installation packages contain code from a considerable > number of > "external" libraries (i.e. third party ones that are developed in their own > projects, not > copyright Oracle and have mostly LGPL license). So this would not be al

Re: A little OOo history

On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: > Danese Cooper wrote on 06/07/2011 03:43:56 PM: > >> Apache don't think that money is evil, but we also believe that >> seeing our code in wide use is more important than money. >> OpenOffice.org is important to the Developing World, some of w

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 04:26:15PM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: > That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up. > > At the present time, there are people who would rather not participate > in such an arrangement. They have something that works just fine for > them. Many are skeptical that we can d

Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal

Simon, I've tried to edit the wiki but I don't have permisson... shame on me :) Best, Jomar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: A little OOo history - and lining up our arrows

I am personally quite fond of this kernel.org-style idea. It is consistent with focused attention on ensuring a rock-solid reference implementation for ODF-native office-productivity software (and reusable components) while allowing its confident use in building user-facing distributions to a

Re: A little OOo history

Am 07.06.2011 19:58, schrieb robert_w...@us.ibm.com: > and charge $0.99 for the download, the cost of an iPhone app. That is > over $30 million/year. Heck, I might just do that myself and retire! No, you can not retire: I will only charge $0.49 or a part of a bitcoin ;-) Cheers, Andreas

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

2011/6/7 André Schnabel It is only that you have at a rather low-traffic apache list guests who are > used to discuss on high-traffic lists. And discussion is often with lots of > emotion (but seems to clam down). > Ah, nostalgia, it's just like the good old days on the OOo marketing list :-) “

Re: A little OOo history

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > The words "not surprisingly" were not necessary.  Labeling these words > as an "insult", while arguably technically accurate, increased rather > than reduced tension. Guys, aren't you married? This "not surprisingly" simply indicates you're male

Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant

Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other owners to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there holds the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some definite legwork, but it seems doable. On Jun 7, 2011 10:15 AM, "Simon Phipps" wr

Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal

And I just heard back from OSCON. We have a room available all day Monday (the first tutorial day). As mentioned before, access to this meeting would be gratis. D On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > I just heard back from the Open World Forum Programme Committee (Paris, > Octobe

Re: A little OOo history

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: >> The OpenOffice.org installation packages contain code from a considerable >> number of >> "external" libraries (i.e. third party ones that are developed in their own >> projects, not >> copy

Re: A little OOo history

Op 7-6-2011 22:37, William A. Rowe Jr. schreef: On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: The OpenOffice.org installation packages contain code from a considerable number of "external" libraries (i.e. third party ones that are developed in their own projects, not copyright Oracle and have most

Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal

Are you logged in? Accounts are free (hey, they even let me have one)! {Terse? Mobile!} On Jun 7, 2011 10:09 PM, "Jomar Silva (Cuca)" wrote: > Simon, > > I've tried to edit the wiki but I don't have permisson... shame on me :) > > Best, > > Jomar > > --

Re: Request: Can "proposed committers" introduce themselves?

Hi, I'm Jomar Silva, member of the OASIS ODF TC since 2008 and I've been ahead of the ODF Alliance Latin America since 2007. I use OpenOffice since it was StarOffice, and I'm very active on the FLOSS and Open Standards evangelization in South America. I've being working closelly with the BrOffice

Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant

Greg Stein wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM: > > Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other owners > to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there holds > the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some definite > legwork, but

Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM, wrote: > Greg Stein wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM: > > > > > Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other > owners > > to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there > holds > > the copyright. We just have to deter

Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal

Yep... but even logged in I couldn't edit it... I'm from the third world, you know :) Jomar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: A little OOo history

On Jun 7, 2011 3:01 PM, "Simon Brouwer" wrote: > > Op 7-6-2011 22:37, William A. Rowe Jr. schreef: > >> On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: >>> >>> The OpenOffice.org installation packages contain code from a considerable number of >>> "external" libraries (i.e. third party ones that are dev

Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Jomar Silva (Cuca) wrote: > Yep... but even logged in I couldn't edit it... I'm from the third > world, you know :) > > Fascinating. Can you send me your login details privately and I'll see if any of the folk I have on IM can help :-) S.

Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal

Jomar, I had to verify my email address, then log back in to activate the edit token. Gotta love them wikis ;-p. D On Jun 7, 2011, at 4:01 PM, "Jomar Silva (Cuca)" wrote: > Yep... but even logged in I couldn't edit it... I'm from the third > world, you know :) > > Jomar > >

Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal

What time on Monday? I'm not available between 1PM and 6PM. (Actually evening would be better as some people might be in tutorials all day). Dona Hertel On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 14:51 -0700, Danese Cooper wrote: > And I just heard back from OSCON. We have a room available all day

Re: Request: Can "proposed committers" introduce themselves?

Sure. Hi everyone (maybe the people that Rob knows should introduce themselves as well - some of us are new to the community.) My name is David Fisher. I have been in the software industry for over 30 years. I've worked in many computer languages - FORTRAN, PL/1, C, C++, Postscript, Java, Bas

RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

"Noel J. Bergman" wrote on 06/07/2011 03:49:12 PM: > From: "Noel J. Bergman" > To: > Date: 06/07/2011 03:49 PM > Subject: RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice > > Simon Phipps wrote: > > > I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome > would > > be close to my original propo

Re: Request: Can "proposed committers" introduce themselves?

Dave Fisher wrote on 06/07/2011 09:23:25 PM: > > Sure. Hi everyone (maybe the people that Rob knows should introduce > themselves as well - some of us are new to the community.) > > My name is David Fisher. I have been in the software industry for > over 30 years. I've worked in many computer

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

I was against this experiment since my first mail but I've reading and learning a number of important facts since. So I thought I would summarize the "no" vote reasons so I can disconnect and return to my own big tasks ;-) If you've made up your mind, plz delete as I don't want to waste any more o

RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

Keith Curtis wrote: > This AL2 is not within the spirit of the tradition of this codebase > because it is invoking a proprietary clause. The Apache License is a fully permissive, inclusive, non-viral, Open Source license. You are entirely incorrect. > AL2 will make ongoing code sharing with LO

RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

Sam Ruby wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Core development would happen at the ASF. Everyone: IBMer, TDFer, and > > other alike would be welcomed to contribute to the core code, under > > our license, and to incorporate their own downstream changes under > > their own license. From that perspe

[VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an Apache Incubator project. The proposal discussion thread and full text of the proposal can be found at the following locations: Discussion Thread: http://www.mail-

Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

+1 (binding). Good luck, awesome project! Cheers, Chris On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:39 PM, arv...@cloudera.com wrote: > As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few > days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an > Apache Incubator project. The proposal disc

Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

+1 (non-binding). On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:09 AM, arv...@cloudera.com wrote: > As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few > days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an > Apache Incubator project. The proposal discussion thread and full text > of the

Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

+1 (binding) Ralph On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:39 PM, arv...@cloudera.com wrote: > As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few > days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an > Apache Incubator project. The proposal discussion thread and full text > of the p

[VOTE] Flume to join the Incubator.

Hi all, Since there have been no new conversations on this Flume [PROPOSAL] thread, I'd like to call a vote. At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here is a link to the document in the wiki: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/FlumeProposal And here is a link to the dis

Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: [...] their downstream code cannot be used.  Hence, the best outcome under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer. Just because you choose a particular license that d

Re: Request: Can "proposed committers" introduce themselves?

On Jun 7, 2011, at 6:54 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: > Dave Fisher wrote on 06/07/2011 09:23:25 PM: > >> >> Sure. Hi everyone (maybe the people that Rob knows should introduce >> themselves as well - some of us are new to the community.) >> >> My name is David Fisher. I have been in the

Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

+1 (binding), Agreeing with Chris, looks awesome ! On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:39 AM, arv...@cloudera.com wrote: > As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few > days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an > Apache Incubator project. The proposal discuss

Re: [VOTE] Flume to join the Incubator.

+1 (binding) Ralph On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > Hi all, > > Since there have been no new conversations on this Flume [PROPOSAL] thread, > I'd like to call a vote. > > At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here is a > link to the document in t

Introducing orcmid

Hi, My name is Dennis Hamilton. I am a semi-retired software system architect living in Seattle, Washington. My profile of profiles is already up at . The "orcmid" handle goes back to DecWars on a PDP-10 and the early CompuServe CB chat rooms. My con

Re: [VOTE] Flume to join the Incubator.

+1 On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > Hi all, > > Since there have been no new conversations on this Flume [PROPOSAL] thread, > I'd like to call a vote. > > At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here is > a > link to the document in the wiki: >

Re: [VOTE] Flume to join the Incubator.

Here is my +1 (non binding) -- *Ioannis Canellos* * http://iocanel.blogspot.com Apache Karaf Committer & PMC Apache ServiceMix Committer *

Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

+1 (non binding) -- *Ioannis Canellos* * http://iocanel.blogspot.com Apache Karaf Committer & PMC Apache ServiceMix Committer *

Re: [VOTE] Flume to join the Incubator.

+1 -Nigel On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Jonathan Hsieh wrote: > Hi all, > > Since there have been no new conversations on this Flume [PROPOSAL] thread, > I'd like to call a vote. > > At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here is a > link to the document in the wiki:

Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

+1 -Nigel On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:39 PM, arv...@cloudera.com wrote: > As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few > days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an > Apache Incubator project. The proposal discussion thread and full text > of the proposal c

Re: Fwd: Add incubator group to podling committers

Christian Grobmeier wrote on Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:24:45 +0200: > Hello, > > I sent this to infra, but I have been told the incubator chair should > handle this. > > Can the people below be added to the incubator group so they can > update the ONGL website? I have hear our inc-chair is ooo (wow

Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

+1 (binding) LieGrue, strub --- On Wed, 6/8/11, Julien Vermillard wrote: > From: Julien Vermillard > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2011, 5:59 AM > +1 (binding), > Agreeing with Chris, looks awesome ! > > On Wed, J

Re: Fwd: Add incubator group to podling committers

>> Can the people below be added to the incubator group so they can >> update the ONGL website? I have hear our inc-chair is ooo (wow, that >> acronym got somehow hijiacked in this list) - do we have a deputy >> handling it? >> > > Thirty-six other people on the Incubator PMC have sufficient karma:

Re: [VOTE] Flume to join the Incubator.

+1 (binding) Tommaso 2011/6/8 Jonathan Hsieh > Hi all, > > Since there have been no new conversations on this Flume [PROPOSAL] thread, > I'd like to call a vote. > > At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here is > a > link to the document in the wiki: > http://wiki.a

Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

+1 (binding) Tommaso 2011/6/8 arv...@cloudera.com > As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few > days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an > Apache Incubator project. The proposal discussion thread and full text > of the proposal can be found at

Re: [VOTE] Accept Sqoop for Incubation

+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > +1 (binding) > Tommaso > > 2011/6/8 arv...@cloudera.com > >> As there are no active discussions on the [PROPOSAL] thread for a few >> days now, I will like to initiate the vote to accept Sqoop as an >> Apache Incubator pro

<    1   2