Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.orgwrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.com wrote: --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: As Rob Weir has put it ... ... So obviously there is limited volunteer bandwidth to migrate the wiki. And I've heard from several people, on and off the list, that much of what is on the wiki is not very useful. uh, well...I don't know bout this. I was under the impression that MUCH of developer info was here. Others would need to weigh in but I think it was widely used because of the ease of use. Just my word of advice: Check the MediaWiki at http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/ If we take out information about Hg (dead), the Development Teams and Projects (which will have to be reorganized), Old News, the issue tracker ... Is the information left worth it to run through a MW--CWiki conversion effort? Yes, the projects need some reorganization, but I doubt if all the development stuff should be removed. It simply hasn't gone anywhere -- yet. The problem is NOT the conversion effort (a one time deal) but the maintenance effort. *IF* someone(s) would step up to be the MW guru, there wouldn't be an issue but we're outside the infra workings. Well then we should look for that guru. So far I havent event seen clearly what things do we actually need. Maybe we need to come to the decision we need to get a MW administrator. Clayton was our administrator, if he want to train the new administrator then we wont need such a guru. AFAIK he left open the option of doing some light mentoring on the administration. I think given the license situation we should just leave that stuff as read-only for now and do all new work on CWiki (or MoinMoin). Well OK, good enough and I would agree with this. After looking at the old wiki this am, it seems someone from the es area has made quite a few changes/additions, and the front page itself had been modified this am. Of course, there was that throw pillows page addition??! and ps. Does anyone here actually know HOW to put the old wiki in read-only??? Usually to do a backup of the wiki, you are supposed to make it read only. Is a configuration line in the .conf file. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Backing_up_a_wiki I paste the wrong link, is actually: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgReadOnly Pedro. -- --- MzK There is no such thing as coincidence. -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39 -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6 -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: Diploma thesis: a survey about Oracle's care of the OpenOffice.org community (and not LibreOffice)
Hi, first of all, I feel sorry, that I did forward the request to this list. Seems you feel more disturbed than than realizing the chance to help someone with his thesis. Regarding questions about Oracle: I already asked Fabian if it was not better to ask about Apache, not Oracle. He then explizitly referred to Oracle. I think it should be up to the Student and his tutors to decide what they ask and how they do the analysis (just from seeing the questions you don't know, how the answers wil be analysed). Guys ... do you really question every thesis after you read some paragraphs of the preparation? If yes - don't read it and don't care about it. Regarding asking the same thing multiple times. - I have only very basic knowledge about surveys, but this is a common way to get better results. Eg.g you dedetect things, where people are unsure, or just click through. After all .. I only post very rarely to this list, and the comments are absolutely not encouraging to continue that. Regards, André Am 27.09.2011 21:07, schrieb Dave Fisher: DId this individual's academic advisor give any input on how to conduct an unbiased survey? I think not. Really the survey was very repetitive and only about Oracle and OpenOffice.org. I didn't get far enough before I noticed it was asking the same questions over and over. Maybe in German there are subtle differences. I didn't get to questions about LIbreOffice or Apache at all. If SImon and Rob want to debate corporate biases, go ahead. I'm not interested in wasting y time on this type of navel gazing. On Sep 27, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: The more direct comparison would be OpenOffice.org/OOo Community Council versus LO/TDF, or OpenOffice.org/Oracle versus LO/Novell. In other words compare governance or compare corporate sponsorship, but don't mix the two. Presumably if you believe Novell to be the main sponsor of LibreOffice you will also be recommending to the researcher that they treat IBM as the main sponsor of AOOo, Rob. Perhaps you could cc the list when you write to them. Thanks, S.
why can't I access this address : http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/
hi, why can't I access this address http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/ thanks mail:zhaos...@cn.ibm.com tel:54747 Address:2/F,Ring Bldg. No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software Park, No.8, Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, P.R.China
Forums not reachable
Hi all, The forums not reachable, at least to me, on address http://user.services.openoffice.org Somebody knows why? Thanks, Zoltan
Re: Forums not reachable
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:50:41 +0200 Reizinger Zoltán zreizin...@hdsnet.hu wrote: The forums not reachable, at least to me, on address http://user.services.openoffice.org Somebody knows why? Not reachable here either, Zoltan, for at least the last 36 hours. A posting on oooforum.org notes that the site is down, but gives no reason http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=131317 -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie
Re: [build] Who does frequently builds and on wich Systems?
Hi, I am building frequently on Windows 7 using the Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 Express together with Microsoft SDK for Windows Server 2008. Best regards, Oliver. On 28.09.2011 01:15, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi at all To ensure that the code is buildable on any System, we should have frequently builds on any system. I ask here who does frequently builds, and on wich system. Normaly I make one build per day if I see same changes in the SVN Log. Build system is Mac OS X 10.6 10.4 SDK Greetings Raphael
Re: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language
I'm working on a local copy. So far I haven't changed much code in the extension. The extender is a separate project, because it could be be used without the extension. Given time I'm planning to add a better code editor. But first I have to overcome some idiotic problems in Eclipse. Greetings eymux On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Carl Marcum cmar...@apache.org wrote: Hi, On 09/27/2011 03:02 AM, Andor E wrote: Hi, I'm currently working on updating the Groovy for OpenOffice.org extension. I already have included the latest Groovy library. Currently I'm writing an extender, that allows to access functions and properties without imports and casts. I still have to overcome a few stumbling blocks, but I hope to have something up for release soon. Greetings eymux Are you working on the original extension or a fork of the project? Best regards, Carl
Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I'd recommend supporting Windows XP and beyond. XP is officially supported by Microsoft until April 2014. I'm certainly not making any effort to maintain or test support for earlier versions. Of course, that doesn't prevent anyone else from testing and patching to support earlier versions. yes i think WinXP is a good and appropriate baseline. We have enough to do with newer systems when in think for example in the direction of 64 bit. Juergen
Re: [legal] How to clarify, if usage of Boost C++ source libraries is allowed
Hi, on http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html it is said: quote Asking Questions Please submit questions to the Legal Affair Committee JIRA space. /quote Thus, I expect that people from the Legal Affair Committee will response. Best regards, Oliver. On 28.09.2011 04:13, Shao Zhi Zhao wrote: hi, who will response to the submitted JIRA issue? thanks mail:zhaos...@cn.ibm.com tel:54747 Address:2/F,Ring Bldg. No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software Park, No.8, Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, P.R.China Inactive hide details for Oliver-Rainer Wittmann ---2011-09-27 21:29:33---Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com Oliver-Rainer Wittmann ---2011-09-27 21:29:33---Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com *Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com * 2011-09-27 21:27 Please respond to ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org To ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, cc Subject Re: [legal] How to clarify, if usage of Boost C++ source libraries is allowed Hi, here is the link to the submitted JIRA issue - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-101 Best regards, Oliver. On 27.09.2011 14:59, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: On 27.09.2011 14:16, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, I want to clarify, if we can still use the Boost C++ source libraries in our project. It is licensed under the Boost Software License - Version 1.0, found at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt Boost is widely used in our source core. It is included in project via the ext_sources process. What is the right way at Apache to clarify, if such a 3rd party stuff can be used, if its license is not mentioned at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html? Should I submit a corresponding JIRA issue in JIRA project 'Legal Discuss'? If there is doubt, certainly send a note to legal-discuss asking them to classify the license. This particular case looks easy. It is not placing any restrictions other than including their notice. So we would need to add their notice to our NOTICE.txt. Rob Thank you, Rob. I agree that this case should be no problem. But as its license is not mentioned on the above mentioned Apache website, I will ask legal-discuss. I have seen that JIRA mails from its JIRA project are mirrored to mailing list legal-discuss. Thus, I will submit a corresponding JIRA issue. Best regards, Oliver.
Re: why can't I access this address : http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/
Hi, Eike posted on 2011-09-11 that this service has stopped working - see http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201109.mbox/%3c20110911141738.gc15...@kulungile.erack.de%3E But, I have no answer for the question why this service is gone. Best regards, Oliver. On 28.09.2011 08:32, Shao Zhi Zhao wrote: hi, why can't I access this address http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/ thanks mail:zhaos...@cn.ibm.com tel:54747 Address:2/F,Ring Bldg. No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software Park, No.8, Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, P.R.China
Re: why can't I access this address : http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/
Probably the machine was turned off. You can see the source here: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/DEV300/summary also in Apache: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/ On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, Eike posted on 2011-09-11 that this service has stopped working - see http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201109.mbox/%3c20110911141738.gc15...@kulungile.erack.de%3E But, I have no answer for the question why this service is gone. Best regards, Oliver. On 28.09.2011 08:32, Shao Zhi Zhao wrote: hi, why can't I access this address http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/ thanks mail:zhaos...@cn.ibm.com tel:54747 Address:2/F,Ring Bldg. No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software Park, No.8, Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, P.R.China -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: Iaccessible2 in OOo
Hi Jean-Philippe Thanks for highlighting the need for IA2 support in AOO. I agree that IBM offering the Symphony support for the IA2 [1] accessibility API will 'potentially' make AOO available to a much wider user base by providing vital support to NVDA and other assistive technology running on Windows (incidentally, IA2 support will also make automated testing much easier on Windows and allows tasks traditionally done via UNO). As you point out the current limited support plus fact that the alternative Java Access Bridge is too complex for users to install themselves means that accessibility tool developers such as NVDA are forced to recommend Symphony as the accessible Office suite for Windows. I say 'potentially' as the developers in the community will make it a priority if, and only if, it is clear there is a strong demand for IA2 and someone leads the work and use of it. So I would encourage you to continue your work of letting us know of the need and also suggest you guide other users and developers who require IA2 support in AOO to join in the discussion here. A good approach would be to get folks to blog about why it is important and we can post links here. That way the AOO community will be encouraged to work on ensuring there is an open and accessible Office suite available for Windows. In fact there may eventually be even more choice for users if AOO becomes the core used by other projects, as indeed it has the potential to be. It's great to hear from Marcus that dev work is under way. It's up to us in the accessibility community to 'cheer them on'. So please do encourage the NVDA community to join in here. I'll ping the developers and let them know of your interest and this thread that you started. Thanks again 1: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/accessibility/iaccessible2 Steve Lee OpenDirective 2011/9/27 Jean-Philippe MENGUAL mengualjean...@free.fr: Ok thanks very much for this interesting answer. If you need some dialogue with NVDA or Orca (Linux), and if I can help as intermediate, no problem, don't hesitate. I follow the situation as I consider it's a very important progress to promote better free software in general. Thanks for your interest. Regards, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL Le mercredi 28 septembre 2011 à 00:05 +0200, Marcus (OOo) a écrit : Am 09/27/2011 08:58 PM, schrieb Jean-Philippe MENGUAL: Hi Jean-Philippe, As ordinary blind user, I work very much to promote OOo and accessibility free software for blind people. The current problem is that public administrations, in France, choose OOo, but blind people are thanks a lot for your effort to promote OOo. :-) complaining, as they consider it's not perfectly accessible with NVDA (Free screen reader for Windows). And migrating to Linux isn't always easy in a network (active directory features, ...). However, IBM Symphony works fine. My problem is that's not a really free software. Nethertheless, IBM, according I was told, gave to the Apache Foundation Iaccessible2, which is the code which enables Symphony to be perfectly accessible with NVDA. That's correct. Could someone study Iaccessible2 and integrate it in OOo? It'd be great if OOo could be accessible with NVDA in the next stable releases. As no developper, I'd appreciate if you could tell me when it's integrated, if someone accepts to do it. I don't know if it's already completely arrived or if there are still some things to fix before it can be integrated into the code. However, we are really working on taking advantage of the IA2 technology. Maybe Rob can say more about the current status. It's very unlikely that it will be part of the first AOO release because of this and nobody knows the side effects that could occur. So, IMHO expect it not for the coming release but for the following one. HTH Marcus
Not new but under a new hat
Hi, i am not really new here and be one of the initial committers but i would take the opportunity to let you know that i got the chance to work fulltime on the project in the future as an IBM employee. After 14 years with Sun and Oracle and working on the OOo project since the beginning i was affected by the announcement of Oracle earlier this year in several ways. The project where i has spent a lot of work and energy into it was dropped in a somewhat unclear future including the team in HH. And i had to confess that i felt in some kind of a hole and thought it would be time for a longer break. But with the grant of the source code to the Apache foundation it rose at least the chance for the project to continue and become an independent project under the well accepted Apache foundation. I thought ok, Apache not TDF or any other institution but it's Oracles decision and it's now up to the community to continue the project. That was the reason why i joined the AOO project early without knowing what i will do tomorrow from a professional perspective. I spent a lot of time in the summer to relax and thinking about the future of the project, my occupational career etc. In the end i accepted the offerig by IBM and i am really happy that i can now continue the work on the project. I will focus on making the project Apache conform first and to make a binary release available asap. I will help by the integration of changes made for Symphony that will definitely bring the project forward (e.g. IAccessiblity2) and of course i will continue with all the other work that i have done in the past for the project. There are a lot of things to do where we need a lot of volunteers helping the project to grow in the future. I really hope that over time we can reunify the 2 projects AOO and LibreOffice from a technical perspective and can share at least a common code base. From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one office together. That doesn't mean that the TDF should stop their work, i really respect it and they achieved a lot in the short time. But from a technical perspective it doesn't make sense to split the resources in 2 groups working on more or less the same thing. It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. The good thing at Apache is that all contributors are more or less equal and it is important what they do. A good chance for all who simply want to bring the project forward without too much politic in the background. The focus should be our users and an easy to use office productivity suite for all. Juergen
Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Sep 28, 2011 3:06 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: So total silence. Is that the best we can come up with? One problem is that what is being asked for here is a voluntary time commitment. Typically volunteers don't want to be tired to a schedule. I'd suggest that a better approach is to just encourage people to write stuff as and when they can. Raise visibility of their contributions here on the list. Thank them profusely. currently there is no visibility of what is going on on the blog, I suggest cross-posting here. Providing ideas for content here (as you do below) can help. You can drop into email threads occasionally an say can someone blog that please, just post your content here if you don't want to post it straight to the blog (eg the accessibility thread looks like a recent support, lets get some clarity in there then move it to the blog as a statement of intent or a call for assistance as appropriate. Other candidate threads would be the 4.0 discussion (invite people to come and have their say), the migration of some incompatible code to Apache-extras, the fact that people are building the code from Apache SVN and many more. Ross Who asked for the project blog in the first place? It wasn't me. And it wasn't Dennis. But so far we're the only ones who have written up posts. Please do take another look at this note and sign up for a post. It could be informational. It could be an announcement. It could be seeking volunteers. It could be seeking feedback. Whatever. Our ooo-dev list averages 56 posts/day. So it should not be hard to find material for a blog post every two weeks. I'll sign up for the next post, planning on one related to the IP review of AOOo, to give the reader some sense of what we're doing and why we can't just immediately release AOOo 3.4.0. Please add your own ideas to the Editoral Calendar and volunteer to write a future post. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA If we don't start getting some additional volunteers here, I'll propose that we delete the blog altogether. So far, its existence has received more note in the press for lack of updates than for any content there. I'd rather have no blog if we can't do better than that. -Rob On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I've added a wiki page to track this. I'd like to see if can develop a cadence of a new post every two weeks. This should not be too hard if we have a few volunteers to draft the posts. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Blog The target audiences are generally external to this project and those who are subscribed to the ooo-dev list. So think of the larger Apache community, OpenOffice users, the larger OOo community, the press, etc. Please take a look and sign up for a future post. Or even just suggest a future top and maybe someone will volunteer to write it up. Some possible future topics could be: - relaunch of the support forums - how to report a bug - high level description of the migration effort - high level description of the IP review process - review of the various project-related mailing lists and the transition to Apache. Where do users go for what? -Rob
Re: Forums not reachable
Already published on users ML - Mail transféré - De: drew d...@baseanswers.com À: ooo-us...@incubator.apache.org Envoyé: Mardi 27 Septembre 2011 22:27:54 Objet: Re: Forum outage OK - quick update - received an email from Andrew R. at Oracle a few minutes ago and he is working to get someone on the problem as quickly as he can...as soon as I know more, you'll know. //drew
Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: So total silence. Is that the best we can come up with? hopefully not I'll sign up for the next post, planning on one related to the IP review of AOOo, to give the reader some sense of what we're doing and why we can't just immediately release AOOo 3.4.0. Please add your own ideas to the Editoral Calendar and volunteer to write a future post. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA i don't understand where i have to do that. Can you explain it. And how can a committer request author access to the blog. I can't find the emails about the initial discussion and blog setup ... Once figured out i will document in the wiki. If we don't start getting some additional volunteers here, I'll propose that we delete the blog altogether. So far, its existence has received more note in the press for lack of updates than for any content there. I'd rather have no blog if we can't do better than that. we should definitely improve our visibility, it's important Juergen
Re: Diploma thesis: a survey about Oracle's care of the OpenOffice.org community (and not LibreOffice)
On 28 September 2011 07:33, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote: 2011/9/28 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net Hi, first of all, I feel sorry, that I did forward the request to this list. Seems you feel more disturbed than than realizing the chance to help someone with his thesis. I have helped students on their thesis toward FOSS governance and FOSS localization process, but I would be very careful to do on a survey that could be perceived or manipulated to get a non-technical and rather bias view of something that has been discussed over and over. I would be happier if the thesis reffer to an actual technical topic, like how to approach and update the image managing engine, or restore animations on the Flash export module of OOo. Or if there is a better solution to handle SVG. Or address/resolve issues within the latest ODF schema. But I see this a more of a Journalist/PR study more than an actual CS-level study. (I am thinking this student comes from a CS background). It is perfectly legitimate to research social as well as technical aspects of projects. I have a physics background but I researched motivation theory in education for an MSc in education management dissertation. As usual everyone is an expert in education often with no qualifications and no experience apart from going to school :-). I use MySQL, does that make me an expert in coding it? As Andre says, some things in a survey might not be intuitive, that seems like a possible indication that the survey is well designed because it means the respondent is not able to simply tick things at random. (I haven't looked at this particular one in detail so it might or might not apply, but it would be surprising if an academic tutor at a university didn't pick up serious flaws). I wonder if such a reaction would have happened if the questions had all been biased to a LibreOffice view of the world ;-) ? Come on guys, let's be a little more tolerant about these things. If you don't want to take part simply ignore it. If you want to help the guy, fill it in. It's more about him learning than marketing propaganda for any project in any case. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Not new but under a new hat
2011/9/28 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com Hi, i am not really new here and be one of the initial committers but i would take the opportunity to let you know that i got the chance to work fulltime on the project in the future as an IBM employee. Hi Jurgen, great to see you coming back into the project and learning about your new career. After 14 years with Sun and Oracle and working on the OOo project since the beginning i was affected by the announcement of Oracle earlier this year in several ways. The project where i has spent a lot of work and energy into it was dropped in a somewhat unclear future including the team in HH. And i had to confess that i felt in some kind of a hole and thought it would be time for a longer break. But with the grant of the source code to the Apache foundation it rose at least the chance for the project to continue and become an independent project under the well accepted Apache foundation. I thought ok, Apache not TDF or any other institution but it's Oracles decision and it's now up to the community to continue the project. That was the reason why i joined the AOO project early without knowing what i will do tomorrow from a professional perspective. I spent a lot of time in the summer to relax and thinking about the future of the project, my occupational career etc. In the end i accepted the offerig by IBM and i am really happy that i can now continue the work on the project. I will focus on making the project Apache conform first and to make a binary release available asap. I will help by the integration of changes made for Symphony that will definitely bring the project forward (e.g. IAccessiblity2) and of course i will continue with all the other work that i have done in the past for the project. There are a lot of things to do where we need a lot of volunteers helping the project to grow in the future. I really hope that over time we can reunify the 2 projects AOO and LibreOffice from a technical perspective and can share at least a common code base. From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one office together. That doesn't mean that the TDF should stop their work, i really respect it and they achieved a lot in the short time. But from a technical perspective it doesn't make sense to split the resources in 2 groups working on more or less the same thing. It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. The good thing at Apache is that all contributors are more or less equal and it is important what they do. A good chance for all who simply want to bring the project forward without too much politic in the background. The focus should be our users and an easy to use office productivity suite for all. Juergen -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: Forums not reachable
Op 28-9-2011 8:58, Rory O'Farrell schreef: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:50:41 +0200 Reizinger Zoltánzreizin...@hdsnet.hu wrote: The forums not reachable, at least to me, on address http://user.services.openoffice.org Somebody knows why? Not reachable here either, Zoltan, for at least the last 36 hours. A posting on oooforum.org notes that the site is down, but gives no reason http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=131317 I noticed it too, and I'm an admin at the Dutch nl forum. But I'm as ignorant about what's going on as everybody else. :=(
Re: Forums not reachable
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:00 +0200, floris v wrote: Op 28-9-2011 8:58, Rory O'Farrell schreef: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:50:41 +0200 Reizinger Zoltánzreizin...@hdsnet.hu wrote: The forums not reachable, at least to me, on address http://user.services.openoffice.org Somebody knows why? Not reachable here either, Zoltan, for at least the last 36 hours. A posting on oooforum.org notes that the site is down, but gives no reason http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=131317 I noticed it too, and I'm an admin at the Dutch nl forum. But I'm as ignorant about what's going on as everybody else. :=( You are right in that no one knows - you really should be following the user mailing list [the new one not the old one], this was the only topic talked about on the list yesterday ... then again, it's not like the list is actually getting any use otherwise anyway - but still. So, I've been up since 4 AM, my time, hoping to hear something and now it's 11:30 Hamburg time - still nothing - I did just get an email (an hour ago now) from Terry so everyone is waiting to pounce, but as of 5 minutes ago still unable to connect to the server in any way at all.
Re: Not new but under a new hat
Hi Jürgen, first off, glad to hear you stay with our code the ecosystem! :) Jürgen Schmidt wrote: From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one office together. I don't believe it's helpful to start a discussion by asserting that the other party's motivations are no longer valid. But from a technical perspective it doesn't make sense to split the resources in 2 groups working on more or less the same thing. Oh, I'm perfectly with you on that one! :) It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpYp5tCmwqoi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]
On 20.09.2011 16:36, Pavel Janík wrote: Have we ever considered using version control to...uh...manage file versions? Just an idea. Maybe Heiner will say more, but in the past, we have had the external tarballs in the VCS, but then we moved them out and it worked very well. There never was a reason to track external.tar.gz files in VCS, because we do not change them. What might be the best way to handle 3rd party code in AOOo probably will depend on the needs of the developers as well as on legal requirements. We had these tarballs plus patches IIRC because Sun Legal required that all used 3rd party stuff should be preserved in our repos in its original form. As a developer I always had preferred to have 3rd party code treated in the *build* like the internal source code. So if there wasn't a requirement to have unpatched sources in the repository, the most natural way to keep 3rd party stuff would be to have a third sub-repo 3rdparty next to main and extras with the 3rd party stuff checked in. Not the tarballs, just the unpacked content. I wouldn't give up the patches, as they allow to handle updates better. This would cause a problem, as direct changes to the 3rd party stuff without additional authorization (means: changing the source code must not happen accidently, only when the 3rd party code gets an update from upstream) must be prevented, while still patch files must be allowed to added, removed, or changed, not the original source code. If that wasn't possible or too cumbersome, checking in the tarballs in 3rdparty would be better. As svn users never download the complete history as DSCM users do, the pain of binary files in the repo isn't that hard. In case AOOo moved to a DSCM again later, the tarballs could be moved out again easily. Regards, Mathias
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On 28 September 2011 11:53, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.orgwrote: Hi Jürgen, first off, glad to hear you stay with our code the ecosystem! :) Jürgen Schmidt wrote: From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one office together. I don't believe it's helpful to start a discussion by asserting that the other party's motivations are no longer valid. But from a technical perspective it doesn't make sense to split the resources in 2 groups working on more or less the same thing. Oh, I'm perfectly with you on that one! :) It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? Why not do like Google with Chrome and Chromium? Make the Apache release AOpenOffice on Windows and Mac and make LibreOffice on Linux. Share the core coding at ASF and make GPL specific versions for Linux at TDF and perhaps some other OpenDocument software since one would expect TDF to have the document format as a focus. This way we can make more efficient use of the developer resource while allowing ASF and TDF to keep their distinctive identities. The only real problem with this strategy is that some people might philosophically want to only code for GPL so they would be restricted to things specific to Linux - well it's never a perfect world :-). Question to ask is, is it better or worse for FOSS over all? Jürgen, glad you are still here! -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Sep 28, 2011 3:06 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: So total silence. Is that the best we can come up with? One problem is that what is being asked for here is a voluntary time commitment. Typically volunteers don't want to be tired to a schedule. An editorial calendar is schedule for publishing the blog posts, not a schedule for writing them. An author can write the post anytime up to 3 days before the publication date (to allow for lazy consensus). Since we have dates set out up to a year in advance, this gives volunteers a large range of dates to play with. But if a volunteer feels they cannot be tied to a schedule that amounts to any time you feel like it within the next year, then I'm happy to extend the calendar to two years ;-) I'd suggest that a better approach is to just encourage people to write stuff as and when they can. Raise visibility of their contributions here on the list. Thank them profusely. currently there is no visibility of what is going on on the blog, I suggest cross-posting here. I think we're saying the same thing. But I do want to avoid a flood of posts when I send reminders, followed by a drought when there are no reminders. Let's get a pipeline of posts, written by volunteers as and when they can and then turn that irregular stream of contributions into a steady pulse for publication. Providing ideas for content here (as you do below) can help. You can drop into email threads occasionally an say can someone blog that please, just post your content here if you don't want to post it straight to the blog (eg the accessibility thread looks like a recent support, lets get some clarity in there then move it to the blog as a statement of intent or a call for assistance as appropriate. Other candidate threads would be the 4.0 discussion (invite people to come and have their say), the migration of some incompatible code to Apache-extras, the fact that people are building the code from Apache SVN and many more. Ross Who asked for the project blog in the first place? It wasn't me. And it wasn't Dennis. But so far we're the only ones who have written up posts. Please do take another look at this note and sign up for a post. It could be informational. It could be an announcement. It could be seeking volunteers. It could be seeking feedback. Whatever. Our ooo-dev list averages 56 posts/day. So it should not be hard to find material for a blog post every two weeks. I'll sign up for the next post, planning on one related to the IP review of AOOo, to give the reader some sense of what we're doing and why we can't just immediately release AOOo 3.4.0. Please add your own ideas to the Editoral Calendar and volunteer to write a future post. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA If we don't start getting some additional volunteers here, I'll propose that we delete the blog altogether. So far, its existence has received more note in the press for lack of updates than for any content there. I'd rather have no blog if we can't do better than that. -Rob On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I've added a wiki page to track this. I'd like to see if can develop a cadence of a new post every two weeks. This should not be too hard if we have a few volunteers to draft the posts. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Blog The target audiences are generally external to this project and those who are subscribed to the ooo-dev list. So think of the larger Apache community, OpenOffice users, the larger OOo community, the press, etc. Please take a look and sign up for a future post. Or even just suggest a future top and maybe someone will volunteer to write it up. Some possible future topics could be: - relaunch of the support forums - how to report a bug - high level description of the migration effort - high level description of the IP review process - review of the various project-related mailing lists and the transition to Apache. Where do users go for what? -Rob
Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
2011/9/28 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: So total silence. Is that the best we can come up with? hopefully not I'll sign up for the next post, planning on one related to the IP review of AOOo, to give the reader some sense of what we're doing and why we can't just immediately release AOOo 3.4.0. Please add your own ideas to the Editoral Calendar and volunteer to write a future post. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA i don't understand where i have to do that. Can you explain it. Wow. Sorry. That was the wrong clipboard buffer. It could have been worse ;-) The editorial calendar is here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Blog And how can a committer request author access to the blog. I can't find the emails about the initial discussion and blog setup ... You would need to open a JIRA ticket with Infra, to request names. Maybe start with a call on this list for additional blog authors and then send them in a batch. Once figured out i will document in the wiki. Thanks! -Rob If we don't start getting some additional volunteers here, I'll propose that we delete the blog altogether. So far, its existence has received more note in the press for lack of updates than for any content there. I'd rather have no blog if we can't do better than that. we should definitely improve our visibility, it's important Juergen
Re: [build] Who does frequently builds and on wich Systems?
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Raphael Bircher r.birc...@gmx.ch wrote: Hi at all To ensure that the code is buildable on any System, we should have frequently builds on any system. I ask here who does frequently builds, and on wich system. Normaly I make one build per day if I see same changes in the SVN Log. Build system is Mac OS X 10.6 10.4 SDK I build regularly on Ubuntu 11.04. I'd like start build on Windows (32-bit) as well, but I need first to find a machine I can sacrifice. -Rob Greetings Raphael -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I don't think the vendor support lifetime for a consumer OS has bring the end of application support on that OS. What is known is that there will be further service packs, maybe not even OS security patches, but it isn't as if they decay and die. Many machines run much longer than the support life of the OS, and upgrades may not be feasible. The nice thing is a user of Windows 98 or 2000 can still download old versions of OOo and run them. And they can do that for free. And they always will be able to do this. The question is not whether we retroactively support for older versions of Windows. They question is whether we maintain that support going forward, in new releases of the product. Outgrowing the size of machine that an older OS runs on (and might be limited to) is a different matter, as is relying on API functions that are not supported that far back. I don't have an opinion about the Win2k versus Windows XP SP2+ choice for OOo. I am just curious to know what the current platform boundaries are and might become for purposes of QA. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Michael Stahl [mailto:m...@openoffice.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 15:50 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652 On 27.09.2011 22:22, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: What is the oldest Windows OS version that Apache OOo 3.4(-dev) will be supported on? How does that compare with the oldest Windows OS version that the last stable release (3.3.0?) of OpenOffice.org is supported on? (If there is a JRE dependency, that is another variant to consider.) AFAIK OOo 3.x Windows baseline is NT 5.0 (Windows 2000); AFAIK this OS version is no longer supported by the vendor. I'd recommend supporting Windows XP and beyond. XP is officially supported by Microsoft until April 2014. I'm certainly not making any effort to maintain or test support for earlier versions. Of course, that doesn't prevent anyone else from testing and patching to support earlier versions. no objection from me to raising the baseline to WindowsXP; IMHO trying to support an OS that the vendor doesn't support any more doesn't make sense.
Re: [legal] How to clarify, if usage of Boost C++ source libraries is allowed
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, on http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html it is said: quote Asking Questions Please submit questions to the Legal Affair Committee JIRA space. /quote Thus, I expect that people from the Legal Affair Committee will response. Honestly, I see clear answers from legal-discuss for only a small fraction of the questions that are submitted. I don't know if we're misusing that list or what. But it does not appear to operate like a list where you submit a questions and get a definitive answer in a finite period of time, Do Mentors have have an idea on whether we're approaching these questions the right way? In particular, should be forcing the questions by proposing a categorization and seeking lazy consensus? For example, If there are no objections within 3 days to treating the Boost Licence as Category A compatible, then we assume lazy consensus and go forward with that treatment -Rob Best regards, Oliver. On 28.09.2011 04:13, Shao Zhi Zhao wrote: hi, who will response to the submitted JIRA issue? thanks mail:zhaos...@cn.ibm.com tel:54747 Address:2/F,Ring Bldg. No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software Park, No.8, Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, P.R.China Inactive hide details for Oliver-Rainer Wittmann ---2011-09-27 21:29:33---Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com Oliver-Rainer Wittmann ---2011-09-27 21:29:33---Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com *Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com * 2011-09-27 21:27 Please respond to ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org To ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, cc Subject Re: [legal] How to clarify, if usage of Boost C++ source libraries is allowed Hi, here is the link to the submitted JIRA issue - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-101 Best regards, Oliver. On 27.09.2011 14:59, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: On 27.09.2011 14:16, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, I want to clarify, if we can still use the Boost C++ source libraries in our project. It is licensed under the Boost Software License - Version 1.0, found at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt Boost is widely used in our source core. It is included in project via the ext_sources process. What is the right way at Apache to clarify, if such a 3rd party stuff can be used, if its license is not mentioned at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html? Should I submit a corresponding JIRA issue in JIRA project 'Legal Discuss'? If there is doubt, certainly send a note to legal-discuss asking them to classify the license. This particular case looks easy. It is not placing any restrictions other than including their notice. So we would need to add their notice to our NOTICE.txt. Rob Thank you, Rob. I agree that this case should be no problem. But as its license is not mentioned on the above mentioned Apache website, I will ask legal-discuss. I have seen that JIRA mails from its JIRA project are mirrored to mailing list legal-discuss. Thus, I will submit a corresponding JIRA issue. Best regards, Oliver.
Re: Bugzilla e-mail is bouncing and other e-mail issues
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Matt Richards mricha...@gmail.com wrote: heh, when did that happen? Must have missed the email about the ooo-issues list. ooo-issues was created when the podling was initially created. Since it was part of the initial configuration, like ooo-dev, there was never discussion on this list about requesting it. The discussion about the Bugzilla notification bouncing was in a thread called Bugzilla e-mail is bouncing and other e-mail issues, starting on Sept 5th. -Rob On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Follow up to my follow up from a few weeks ago. Can someone open an JIRA issue with Infra and work with them to make these BZ changes? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA As it is now, we have an ooo-issues list, but are receiving no notifications. Thanks! -Rob On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: It sounds like there was general agreement to make all notifications go to ooo-issues@i.a.o. But did anyone follow through (or is anyone intending to follow through) with a JIRA issue, as Mark requested? I'm happy to do this myself, but I think it would be better for someone with more background in how BZ was working before to engage with Infra@ on this. -Rob On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote: Over the weekend, the ASF infra team noticed some e-mail from the ooo BZ instance was bouncing. Specifically, e-mail to iss...@www.openoffice.org. There also are 142 other iss...@xxx.openoffice.org accounts. The delivery failure may be a temporary issue but it highlights a two tasks for the ooo podling. 1. These accounts need to be switched to ASF mailing lists. Please identify the required changes and open a Jira ticket with the infrastructure team to implement the changes. Note: These accounts were enabled. ASF Infra security policy requires that BZ accounts representing mailing lists are disabled. All 143 accounts have been disabled. This does not stop update notifications being sent but it does stop people requesting password resets for these accounts or logging on using these accounts. 3. The assigned to field is set to just about anything other than ooo-dev@incubator.a.o. In the main ASF Bugzilla instance, this field is hard-coded to the relevant project's dev list and is read-only. This ensures that any updates to any issue are sent to the dev list. ASF policy requires that all issue tracker updates are sent to a project mailing list (usually dev@ or issues@) so that the community is aware of updates to the issues. Please decide how you want to handle this and then open a Jira ticket with the infrastructure team to make the changes. Please note I am not subscribed to this list and will not be monitoring it for replies. If you need to contact the infrastructure team please use the usual channels. Mark -- --Matt
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:28 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: On 28 September 2011 11:53, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.orgwrote: Hi Jürgen, first off, glad to hear you stay with our code the ecosystem! :) Jürgen Schmidt wrote: From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one office together. I don't believe it's helpful to start a discussion by asserting that the other party's motivations are no longer valid. But from a technical perspective it doesn't make sense to split the resources in 2 groups working on more or less the same thing. Oh, I'm perfectly with you on that one! :) It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? Why not do like Google with Chrome and Chromium? or why not just shake hands and part as friends. Two projects and two applications. - if AOO wants to get on desktops they need to produce an application that better addresses the needs of their target user base then LibO - if LibO wants desktops they need to better addresses the needs of their target user base then AOO. //drew
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi Jürgen, first off, glad to hear you stay with our code the ecosystem! :) Jürgen Schmidt wrote: From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one office together. I don't believe it's helpful to start a discussion by asserting that the other party's motivations are no longer valid. then please forget it and don't put too much energy in the interpretation. Perhaps i have chosen the wrong words to underline my impression of it. I should have say that i believe ... But from a technical perspective it doesn't make sense to split the resources in 2 groups working on more or less the same thing. Oh, I'm perfectly with you on that one! :) It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? how are other Apache projects find there way in a Linux distro? For AOO it can be probably handled in the same way. For other binary downloads it probably make sense to have one and the same binary. It's much easier to coordinate when bugs are reported for the same thing. If you want to talk about using the brand name than it is probably different and we shouldn't discuss this on this thread but should open a new discussion. We should really talk about the possibilities of a reunification in the sense to provide the best for our users and to bundle the resources for the same goal (i believe that we have the same goal) Juergen
Re: Not new but under a new hat
or why not just shake hands and part as friends. Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and is less good for Open Source in general. Fine strategy if we had thousands of developers in each project and a MS size budget. Two projects and two applications. - if AOO wants to get on desktops they need to produce an application that better addresses the needs of their target user base then LibO Given the number of full time developers now at AOO it is really just a matter of time to get a good desktop product out. Whether it is better or not than the LibO version will always be debateable. (I suspect for most users it will never be more than a marginal decision since most don't use most of what is there now). Rather than taking the competitive option why not the cooperative? The real competition is MS Office and there are already other open source office suites such as Koffice to provide some diversity. - if LibO wants desktops they need to better addresses the needs of their target user base then AOO. Of course on that logic why not fork every FOSS project to increase competition in the market? -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:05 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: or why not just shake hands and part as friends. Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and is less good for Open Source in general. Well, as you can guess I disagree - it's only inefficient if one doggedly holds to the idea that the two projects should (nor need to) share a common code base going forward - by why would that be? Fine strategy if we had thousands of developers in each project and a MS size budget. well there isn't thousands of developers on the two projects combined now, and as for potential developers it isn't thousands, it's millions. Two projects and two applications. - if AOO wants to get on desktops they need to produce an application that better addresses the needs of their target user base then LibO Given the number of full time developers now at AOO it is really just a matter of time to get a good desktop product out. Really - remember Chandler? Money doesn't guarantee success! Whether it is better or not than the LibO version will always be debateable. With all due respect you are again assuming that the two applications must retain some semblance of likeness - and again I ask, why? (I suspect for most users it will never be more than a marginal decision since most don't use most of what is there now). Rather than taking the competitive option and I feel that people in the FOSS world have a knee jerk response to the word competition, the enemy is not mere competition, rather it is an attitude of 'win at any cost'. why not the cooperative? The real competition is MS Office and there are already other open source office suites such as Koffice to provide some diversity. - if LibO wants desktops they need to better addresses the needs of their target user base then AOO. Of course on that logic why not fork every FOSS project to increase competition in the market? Not at all - this is about this situation, about this particular set of facts on the ground, right now. //drew
Re: Not new but under a new hat
Jürgen Schmidt wrote: It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? how are other Apache projects find there way in a Linux distro? For AOO it can be probably handled in the same way. There's precious little Apache projects with gui, and splash screen FWIW - reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ again, it's very unlikely that anyone but Apache can publish OOo-branded binaries, and/or make material additions to an official tarball release. So reunify as OOo sounds very much like a non-starter to me. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpuFLhH1B2xa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Jürgen Schmidt wrote: It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? how are other Apache projects find there way in a Linux distro? For AOO it can be probably handled in the same way. There's precious little Apache projects with gui, and splash screen FWIW - reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ again, it's very unlikely that anyone but Apache can publish OOo-branded binaries, and/or make material additions to an official tarball release. So reunify as OOo sounds very much like a non-starter to me. If you have a specific proposal for use of Apache-owned trademarks, then you are welcome to submit it to this list. We can then review, discuss and make a recommendation to Apache branding. But I think reunification is more than brand reunification. Simply renaming LO to OOo would only confuse the users, since the products differ in features and quality. Before we think of brand concerns, I think we first need progress on community, license and code, first at the level of greater collaboration, then greater compatibility, then maybe reunification. -Rob Cheers, -- Thorsten
my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
Hi, I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up regarding non-Apache license conform stuff. Looking at the wiki - http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration - provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start. I will create patches for the following Apache license problems: - UnixODBC - dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx - A header from GNU c library - ODMA Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked as solved issues? Best regards, Oliver.
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On 28 September 2011 13:31, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:05 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: or why not just shake hands and part as friends. Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and is less good for Open Source in general. Well, as you can guess I disagree - it's only inefficient if one doggedly holds to the idea that the two projects should (nor need to) share a common code base going forward - by why would that be? Because it takes more resources to maintain two different code bases. Resources are at a premium therefore duplicating effort makes no logical sense. This is simple logic, nothing to do with dogmatism. The illogical and emotional position is to do with ownership, not the logic of optimising resources. Fine strategy if we had thousands of developers in each project and a MS size budget. well there isn't thousands of developers on the two projects combined now, and as for potential developers it isn't thousands, it's millions. Firstly, more developer resource is better than less, all other things being equal. More developers working on less code is simply an optimisation of the resources to the tasks. The barriers to entry to participation are too high to assume that there will ever be a surplus in developer resource. All the historical evidence points to this. Friends usually can share things for mutual benefit. I come back to the point that if division is intrinsically good, why not fork Inkscape, Audacity, Gimp, etc etc. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On 28 Sep 2011, at 13:45, Rob Weir wrote: If you have a specific proposal for use of Apache-owned trademarks, then you are welcome to submit it to this list. We can then review, discuss and make a recommendation to Apache branding. I believe it was Juergen who was proposing this, not Thorsten. S.
Re: Iaccessible2 in OOo
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 09/27/2011 08:58 PM, schrieb Jean-Philippe MENGUAL: Hi Jean-Philippe, As ordinary blind user, I work very much to promote OOo and accessibility free software for blind people. The current problem is that public administrations, in France, choose OOo, but blind people are thanks a lot for your effort to promote OOo. :-) complaining, as they consider it's not perfectly accessible with NVDA (Free screen reader for Windows). And migrating to Linux isn't always easy in a network (active directory features, ...). However, IBM Symphony works fine. My problem is that's not a really free software. Nethertheless, IBM, according I was told, gave to the Apache Foundation Iaccessible2, which is the code which enables Symphony to be perfectly accessible with NVDA. That's correct. Could someone study Iaccessible2 and integrate it in OOo? It'd be great if OOo could be accessible with NVDA in the next stable releases. As no developper, I'd appreciate if you could tell me when it's integrated, if someone accepts to do it. I don't know if it's already completely arrived or if there are still some things to fix before it can be integrated into the code. However, we are really working on taking advantage of the IA2 technology. Maybe Rob can say more about the current status. Accessibility is something IBM has taken very seriously with Symphony, as with our other products. We've worked with standards bodies, assistive technology vendors and others to advance the state of accessibility in this area. We'd love to see this same support in OOo and LO and in every other derivative product. That is why we contributed the code to OOo several years ago. Of course, integrating this into the current AOOo (or LO) trunk is non-trivial. IMHO, we're unlikely to integrate IAccessible2 for AOOo 3.4.0. But it is something we should look at for the next major release. As mentioned elsewhere, we have good IAccessible2 support in Symphony today. And we've already announced that we will be contributing the Symphony source code to Apache. Something we'll need to figure out is the least complicated way to merge IAccessible2 support, as well as other desired UI and other enhancements from Symphony, into future Apache releases. Maybe we can consider this to be a dress rehearsal for an eventual merge with LibreOffice? Reconciling the Symphony and AOOo codebases will have much of the same technical complications as an eventual merger of the LO fork will have. Not easy. But not impossible either. -Rob It's very unlikely that it will be part of the first AOO release because of this and nobody knows the side effects that could occur. So, IMHO expect it not for the coming release but for the following one. HTH Marcus
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On 28 September 2011 13:45, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Jürgen Schmidt wrote: It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? how are other Apache projects find there way in a Linux distro? For AOO it can be probably handled in the same way. There's precious little Apache projects with gui, and splash screen FWIW - reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ again, it's very unlikely that anyone but Apache can publish OOo-branded binaries, and/or make material additions to an official tarball release. So reunify as OOo sounds very much like a non-starter to me. If you have a specific proposal for use of Apache-owned trademarks, then you are welcome to submit it to this list. We can then review, discuss and make a recommendation to Apache branding. Yes it is straightforward, I have been through the process so I can vouch for it from first hand experience. But I think reunification is more than brand reunification. Simply renaming LO to OOo would only confuse the users, since the products differ in features and quality. Which is why I suggested LibO on Linux and AOO on Windows and Mac. Google has different brand names for Chrome on Windows and Linux. Before we think of brand concerns, I think we first need progress on community, license and code, first at the level of greater collaboration, then greater compatibility, then maybe reunification. The thing that matters is reunification of a core of code that makes more efficient use of the developer resources for both communities. It seems to me that there is a logic in relating the licensing to proprietary platforms like Windows and Mac and Open Source like Linux. So if TDF focussed its resources on fantastic builds for Linux and perhaps Android and ASF on Windows and Mac it immediately makes things more manageable. There can be common contributions to core code like libraries at Apache under the ASF license which then come down to LGPL in any case. It would make it possible to manage resources optimally within the constraint of having two distinct communities. Names and branding can be sorted out if there is a political will to share and optimise development. I would say that the primary goal is to further odf as the universal standard. That will be best achieved by combining development resources not fragmenting them. We should put politics aside and work out how to best achieve the primary goal with the available resources. Find the reasons why we can make it work, not all the reasons it won't work. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Introduction and start working
Am 09/28/2011 03:03 AM, schrieb Maho NAKATA: From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmannorwittm...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: Introduction and start working Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:08:01 +0200 Hi Nakata Maho, thanks for the welcome. Until last Friday I had a 21 iMac PowerPC on my home desk, but now it has been replaced by a new 27 iMac Intel. Thus, my PPC iMac is more or less retired, but if needed I can wake this machine up ;-) Congratulations for having Intel Mac. I still have PPC, but I really do retire to use PPC any more, too... Now I really love my new MacBookAir 11'...even I switched from FreeBSD as the Desktop OS. Wow, the world is really changing this year. :-) Marcus
Re: Iaccessible2 in OOo
Hi, Very interesting answer, thanks: I say 'potentially' as the developers in the community will make it a priority if, and only if, it is clear there is a strong demand for IA2 and someone leads the work and use of it. So I would encourage you to continue your work of letting us know of the need and also suggest you guide other users and developers who require IA2 support in AOO to join in the discussion here. A good approach would be to get folks to blog about why it is important and we can post links here. That way the AOO community will be encouraged to work on ensuring there is an open and accessible Office suite available for Windows. In fact there may eventually be even more choice for users if AOO becomes the core used by other projects, as indeed it has the potential to be. I will try doing that. But I'd like to mention one problem and several elements which make me think I represent an enormous part of users who want IA2 to be integrated. The problem is that I have feedbacks essentially from France or French-speaking people, and they decided me to be intermediate between English-speaking community and them. So, they have difficulties to write here directly. The language is a problem for the major part of them. However, several things make me think there's a large demand: - In the public administrations in France, where OOo is choosen, we have thousands of people who work and who are blind or sight-impaired; - The workgroup Accessibilité et logiciel libre (A11y and Free software), from April (the main French organization which Promote the Free Software in France) asked for this evolution. It appeared in our bug tracker (used to enable not English-speaking users to report problems so that we forward, as I do now). 4 bugs appear about this issue. - The LibreOffice project expressed the desire to wait for AOOo integration to integrate itself IA2 in their utility. - The problems with OOo are very often denounced on French mailing list of blind people (for instance, ALLOS mailing list). - The CFPSAA, an official enormous organization which defends the blind people rights, published, this June, a newsletter where they explained that migrating a desktop to OOo was a mistake as it's not accessible (it's a pitty! ). I tried answering and communicating about this, but of course if such official organization has this approach, it proves the need. - I met 60 people in France IRL a few weeks ago, to show them what free software gives to accessibility. The cain problem where I had to fight was OOo. Anyway I'll forward your appeal, but I'd like you to know that even if I'm alone to write, it's a time and language problem. But thousands of people asked me to do that. It's really major, that's why I try speaking directly to the dev today. Because when that is fixed, a major limitation will be removed to migrating to Free software with NVDA and other assistive technologies. If you want some tests, of course tell me. I can test, make other tests, as intermediate. It's great to hear from Marcus that dev work is under way. It's up to us in the accessibility community to 'cheer them on'. So please do encourage the NVDA community to join in here. I'll ping the developers and let them know of your interest and this thread that you started. Ok I'll write to NVDA too. I stay available, Best regards, Thanks again 1: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/accessibility/iaccessible2 Steve Lee OpenDirective 2011/9/27 Jean-Philippe MENGUAL mengualjean...@free.fr: Ok thanks very much for this interesting answer. If you need some dialogue with NVDA or Orca (Linux), and if I can help as intermediate, no problem, don't hesitate. I follow the situation as I consider it's a very important progress to promote better free software in general. Thanks for your interest. Regards, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL Le mercredi 28 septembre 2011 à 00:05 +0200, Marcus (OOo) a écrit : Am 09/27/2011 08:58 PM, schrieb Jean-Philippe MENGUAL: Hi Jean-Philippe, As ordinary blind user, I work very much to promote OOo and accessibility free software for blind people. The current problem is that public administrations, in France, choose OOo, but blind people are thanks a lot for your effort to promote OOo. :-) complaining, as they consider it's not perfectly accessible with NVDA (Free screen reader for Windows). And migrating to Linux isn't always easy in a network (active directory features, ...). However, IBM Symphony works fine. My problem is that's not a really free software. Nethertheless, IBM, according I was told, gave to the Apache Foundation Iaccessible2, which is the code which enables Symphony to be perfectly accessible with NVDA. That's correct. Could someone study Iaccessible2 and integrate it in OOo? It'd be great if OOo could be accessible with NVDA in the next stable releases. As
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 September 2011 13:45, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Jürgen Schmidt wrote: It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? how are other Apache projects find there way in a Linux distro? For AOO it can be probably handled in the same way. There's precious little Apache projects with gui, and splash screen FWIW - reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ again, it's very unlikely that anyone but Apache can publish OOo-branded binaries, and/or make material additions to an official tarball release. So reunify as OOo sounds very much like a non-starter to me. If you have a specific proposal for use of Apache-owned trademarks, then you are welcome to submit it to this list. We can then review, discuss and make a recommendation to Apache branding. Yes it is straightforward, I have been through the process so I can vouch for it from first hand experience. But I think reunification is more than brand reunification. Simply renaming LO to OOo would only confuse the users, since the products differ in features and quality. Which is why I suggested LibO on Linux and AOO on Windows and Mac. Google has different brand names for Chrome on Windows and Linux. Before we think of brand concerns, I think we first need progress on community, license and code, first at the level of greater collaboration, then greater compatibility, then maybe reunification. The thing that matters is reunification of a core of code that makes more efficient use of the developer resources for both communities. It seems to me that there is a logic in relating the licensing to proprietary platforms like Windows and Mac and Open Source like Linux. So if TDF focussed its resources on fantastic builds for Linux and perhaps Android and ASF on Windows and Mac it immediately makes things more manageable. There can be common contributions to core code like libraries at Apache under the ASF license which then come down to LGPL in any case. It would make it possible to manage resources optimally within the constraint of having two distinct communities. Names and branding can be sorted out if there is a political will to share and optimise development. I would say that the primary goal is to further odf as the universal standard. That will be best achieved by combining development resources not fragmenting them. We should put politics aside and work out how to best achieve the primary goal with the available resources. Find the reasons why we can make it work, not all the reasons it won't work. If TDF wants to take the AOOo source code and build it, with or without enhancements, and release it under the name LibreOffice for use with Linux distros, then they are welcome to do that. They need no additional permissions from Apache or this project. If they wanted us to have a link on our webpage to their Linux distro, that is easy to do as well. If you look at other Apache C++ projects you see a similar thing. For example. Subversion release are officially only source releases, but they then point to 3rd party binary builds, with a disclaimer: http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html But note that in any given platform there are multiple 3rd party releases. There is no exclusivity. Similarly, I'd expect that we would list IBM Symphony releases, on all platforms, once we are derived from AOOo source. I think it comes down to this: We have different derivatives of OOo: LO, Symphony, RedOffice, etc. There is even a LibreOffice, Novell Edition out there if you want peace of mind (their words) [1]. If the different releases are going to distinguish themselves at the edges, in terms of support, warranty, bundled add-ins and extensions, branding, etc., then it benefits all of us to simply work on the core in one place. But if the products (and their communities and corporate sponsors) wish to diverge their feature sets then this is trickier to handle. In any case, I think we should avoid treating LO or AOOo as a unified mass of opinion, where every participant in each project thinks identically and agrees. I know there are many LO participants who joined that project out of opposition to Oracle's neglect of OOo, but without any great love of Novell/SUSE and their entanglements with Microsoft. But at the time there were no good alternatives. Things are different now. Now they have an alternative in AOOo. We should continue to move forward with our vision. As our project and community develops and we get closer to a solid release, the power of an open,
Re: Iaccessible2 in OOo
2011/9/28 Jean-Philippe MENGUAL mengualjean...@free.fr I will try doing that. But I'd like to mention one problem and several elements which make me think I represent an enormous part of users who want IA2 to be integrated. The problem is that I have feedbacks essentially from France or French-speaking people, and they decided me to be intermediate between English-speaking community and them. So, they have difficulties to write here directly. The language is a problem for the major part of them. However, several things make me think there's a large demand: - In the public administrations in France, where OOo is choosen, we have thousands of people who work and who are blind or sight-impaired; - The workgroup Accessibilité et logiciel libre (A11y and Free software), from April (the main French organization which Promote the Free Software in France) asked for this evolution. It appeared in our bug tracker (used to enable not English-speaking users to report problems so that we forward, as I do now). 4 bugs appear about this issue. - The LibreOffice project expressed the desire to wait for AOOo integration to integrate itself IA2 in their utility. - The problems with OOo are very often denounced on French mailing list of blind people (for instance, ALLOS mailing list). - The CFPSAA, an official enormous organization which defends the blind people rights, published, this June, a newsletter where they explained that migrating a desktop to OOo was a mistake as it's not accessible (it's a pitty! ). I tried answering and communicating about this, but of course if such official organization has this approach, it proves the need. - I met 60 people in France IRL a few weeks ago, to show them what free software gives to accessibility. The cain problem where I had to fight was OOo. Anyway I'll forward your appeal, but I'd like you to know that even if I'm alone to write, it's a time and language problem. But thousands of people asked me to do that. It's really major, that's why I try speaking directly to the dev today. Because when that is fixed, a major limitation will be removed to migrating to Free software with NVDA and other assistive technologies. If you want some tests, of course tell me. I can test, make other tests, as intermediate. even though the fact and the necessity of better accessibility is known it is very good that you raise this point again and make clear the situation. I think with the whole transition of OpenOffice.org to Apache that is still ongoing and not finished we lose important time to work on this but we can't change it. We can only try to work harder to provide something usable asap. Juergen
Re: Iaccessible2 in OOo
Hi; There was an interesting cross-posting by Malte Timmermann not long ago: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201109.mbox/ajax/%3c4e6dc5c3.9050...@gmx.com%3E I am not suggesting it should be done now but perhaps committing accfixes2 would help the IBM IA2 integration. cheers, Pedro. --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: ... even though the fact and the necessity of better accessibility is known it is very good that you raise this point again and make clear the situation. I think with the whole transition of OpenOffice.org to Apache that is still ongoing and not finished we lose important time to work on this but we can't change it. We can only try to work harder to provide something usable asap. Juergen
Re: Forums not reachable
Slightly off-topic. Wasn't there going to be a proposal from the Forum community regarding moving the Forums to Apache Infrastructure? I recall activity on the the CWiki about it, but nothing has happened here to move the process forward. Regards, Dave On Sep 28, 2011, at 3:28 AM, drew wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:00 +0200, floris v wrote: Op 28-9-2011 8:58, Rory O'Farrell schreef: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:50:41 +0200 Reizinger Zoltánzreizin...@hdsnet.hu wrote: The forums not reachable, at least to me, on address http://user.services.openoffice.org Somebody knows why? Not reachable here either, Zoltan, for at least the last 36 hours. A posting on oooforum.org notes that the site is down, but gives no reason http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=131317 I noticed it too, and I'm an admin at the Dutch nl forum. But I'm as ignorant about what's going on as everybody else. :=( You are right in that no one knows - you really should be following the user mailing list [the new one not the old one], this was the only topic talked about on the list yesterday ... then again, it's not like the list is actually getting any use otherwise anyway - but still. So, I've been up since 4 AM, my time, hoping to hear something and now it's 11:30 Hamburg time - still nothing - I did just get an email (an hour ago now) from Terry so everyone is waiting to pounce, but as of 5 minutes ago still unable to connect to the server in any way at all.
Re: Forums not reachable
Wasn't there going to be a proposal from the Forum community regarding moving the Forums to Apache Infrastructure? I recall activity on the the CWiki about it, but nothing has happened here to move the process forward. The proposal is still in progress. There is still no agreement on if it actually will happen. Cheers, Christian Regards, Dave On Sep 28, 2011, at 3:28 AM, drew wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:00 +0200, floris v wrote: Op 28-9-2011 8:58, Rory O'Farrell schreef: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:50:41 +0200 Reizinger Zoltánzreizin...@hdsnet.hu wrote: The forums not reachable, at least to me, on address http://user.services.openoffice.org Somebody knows why? Not reachable here either, Zoltan, for at least the last 36 hours. A posting on oooforum.org notes that the site is down, but gives no reason http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=131317 I noticed it too, and I'm an admin at the Dutch nl forum. But I'm as ignorant about what's going on as everybody else. :=( You are right in that no one knows - you really should be following the user mailing list [the new one not the old one], this was the only topic talked about on the list yesterday ... then again, it's not like the list is actually getting any use otherwise anyway - but still. So, I've been up since 4 AM, my time, hoping to hear something and now it's 11:30 Hamburg time - still nothing - I did just get an email (an hour ago now) from Terry so everyone is waiting to pounce, but as of 5 minutes ago still unable to connect to the server in any way at all. -- http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]
FWIW; I don't like the patches because I can't really examine well the code, besides this is something the VCS handles acceptably: commit the original sourcecode and then apply the patches in a different commit. If we start with up to date versions there would not be much trouble. just my $0.02, not an objection. Pedro. --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: ... I wouldn't give up the patches, as they allow to handle updates better. This would cause a problem, as direct changes to the 3rd party stuff without additional authorization (means: changing the source code must not happen accidently, only when the 3rd party code gets an update from upstream) must be prevented, while still patch files must be allowed to added, removed, or changed, not the original source code. If that wasn't possible or too cumbersome, checking in the tarballs in 3rdparty would be better. i also wouldn't give up the patches and for that reason i would like to move forward for now with keeping the tarballs as proposed. But i like the name 3rdparty for the directory and we can later on change it from the tarballs to the unpacked code it we see demand for it. At the moment it's just easier to keep the tarballs and focus on other work. As svn users never download the complete history as DSCM users do, the pain of binary files in the repo isn't that hard. In case AOOo moved to a DSCM again later, the tarballs could be moved out again easily. agree, we don't really loose anything, can change if necessary and can continue with our work Juergen
Re: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
Hi Oliver-Rainer; --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up regarding non-Apache license conform stuff. Looking at the wiki - http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration - provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start. I will create patches for the following Apache license problems: - UnixODBC - dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx - A header from GNU c library - ODMA Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked as solved issues? No at all... this has waited enough, thanks! Do remember this has to be registered in the NOTICE file. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html cheers, Pedro.
EIS replacement needed? WAS Re: why can't I access this address : http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/
Hi there! There is now no one anymore activly maintaining the EIS server, EIS software and EIS database. At Oracle some of my duties where just these tasks but I now have no longer access to this service. It may have worked some time without maintenance but now it´s gone. That means that neither the web application nor the SOAP webservice used by some commandline tools in the build environment will work anymore. Please also note that the EIS source code was closed source and has not been donated to apache. If the apache OOo Community needs a replacement for these services this will have to be rewritten from scratch probably with some adaption to some different kind of workflow. See also: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/EIS I think using such a tool like EIS to organize workflow between development and QA has proven to be useful in the past and that something like this might also be useful on the new home of openoffice.org at apache. What do others think? Kind regards, Bernd Eilers
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 September 2011 13:31, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:05 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: or why not just shake hands and part as friends. Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and is less good for Open Source in general. Well, as you can guess I disagree - it's only inefficient if one doggedly holds to the idea that the two projects should (nor need to) share a common code base going forward - by why would that be? Because it takes more resources to maintain two different code bases. Resources are at a premium therefore duplicating effort makes no logical sense. This is simple logic, nothing to do with dogmatism. The illogical and emotional position is to do with ownership, not the logic of optimising resources. These concerns have been raise during the incubation proposal review back in June... and, back then, were rejected. Rob even wrote a blog dismissing them http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/openoffice-libreoffice-and-the-scarcity-fallacy.html I come back to the point that if division is intrinsically good, why not fork Inkscape, Audacity, Gimp, etc etc. All these project a free-software, and no corporation is a position to re-license them. So the only reason for a fork would be a technical one, and technical issues rarely escalate to a fork. (one notable exception is egcc vs gcc... and indeed that lead to a re-unification... but that worked because gcc did not decided to switch to an incompatible license in response to the fork) Norbert
Re: Not new but under a new hat
Jürgen, Herzlichen Glückwunsch! Regards, Dave On Sep 28, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, i am not really new here and be one of the initial committers but i would take the opportunity to let you know that i got the chance to work fulltime on the project in the future as an IBM employee. After 14 years with Sun and Oracle and working on the OOo project since the beginning i was affected by the announcement of Oracle earlier this year in several ways. The project where i has spent a lot of work and energy into it was dropped in a somewhat unclear future including the team in HH. And i had to confess that i felt in some kind of a hole and thought it would be time for a longer break. But with the grant of the source code to the Apache foundation it rose at least the chance for the project to continue and become an independent project under the well accepted Apache foundation. I thought ok, Apache not TDF or any other institution but it's Oracles decision and it's now up to the community to continue the project. That was the reason why i joined the AOO project early without knowing what i will do tomorrow from a professional perspective. I spent a lot of time in the summer to relax and thinking about the future of the project, my occupational career etc. In the end i accepted the offerig by IBM and i am really happy that i can now continue the work on the project. I will focus on making the project Apache conform first and to make a binary release available asap. I will help by the integration of changes made for Symphony that will definitely bring the project forward (e.g. IAccessiblity2) and of course i will continue with all the other work that i have done in the past for the project. There are a lot of things to do where we need a lot of volunteers helping the project to grow in the future. I really hope that over time we can reunify the 2 projects AOO and LibreOffice from a technical perspective and can share at least a common code base. From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one office together. That doesn't mean that the TDF should stop their work, i really respect it and they achieved a lot in the short time. But from a technical perspective it doesn't make sense to split the resources in 2 groups working on more or less the same thing. It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. The good thing at Apache is that all contributors are more or less equal and it is important what they do. A good chance for all who simply want to bring the project forward without too much politic in the background. The focus should be our users and an easy to use office productivity suite for all. Juergen
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: If TDF wants to take the AOOo source code and build it, with or without enhancements, and release it under the name LibreOffice for use with Linux distros, then they are welcome to do that. They need no additional permissions from Apache or this project. But that isn't really the point. The point is to look for ways we can talk on an even footing for the good of both projects not say things as if it is a them and us confrontation. Makes one realise why diplomats have a different skill set to technocrats ;-) You are welcome to apply your energy in any way you wish. So am I. I wish us both luck. In any case, I think we should avoid treating LO or AOOo as a unified mass of opinion, where every participant in each project thinks identically and agrees. That doesn't happen in any political organisation. But political organisations do look for consensus in key areas that are for the benefit of both. Look at the current UK government and I'd hope that LibO AOO were politically closer than those two ;-) Things are different now. Now they have an alternative in AOOo. This is simply assuming that the competitive option is better than a cooperative one. In some circumstances that is so, in these circumstances I think it will simply make inefficient use of resources. However, I see little chance of reconciling this while the dominant voices seem so keen to rub each other up the wrong way. Since this is not Soviet Russia, and we don't have a central planner allocating resources according to a politically determined 5-year plan, talk of inefficient use of resources gets us no where. Resources are people, and they allocate themselves to whatever projects and tasks they wish to. This is entirely voluntary. There is no valid definition of efficient allocation other than what people do voluntarily when given free choice among the alternatives. In other words, competition and choice is what leads to efficient use of resources. If everyone agreed that having a single project was best today, then we would have a single project tomorrow. The question should be what can you, or I, or anyone else who wants that outcome, do today, to make it more likely to move closer to that outcome. We should continue to move forward with our vision. As our project and community develops and we get closer to a solid release, the power of an open, meritocratic development process at Apache will be more evident. The volunteer who easily moved from OOo to LO will easily move to AOOo once we show ourselves to have progress, vitality, encouragement and fun. So your strategy is we are superior, they will see the light and convert? Sounds to me like a religious experience :-) I believe in free choice religiously, yes. And I believe in Apache as well. If I believed in neither then I would have supported TDF/LO from the start. But we have a lot of work to get there. Which would be a lot easier with rather than without cooperation and with agreement on reasonable division of labour for development. Yes it will happen anyway eventually but why make life more difficult than it needs to be? Do you have a concrete suggestion? But this is not a race to see who can reformat code indentation in 8 million lines of code the fastest. Honestly, the state of the community in 6 months is more critical than the state of the code in 6 months. The community is the platform we build the project on. Which seems completely antithetical to the rest of your post. Only if you misunderstood almost everything I've said. -Rob -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Not new but under a new hat
I come back to the point that if division is intrinsically good, why not fork Inkscape, Audacity, Gimp, etc etc. GIMP has been forked for quite some time... Read up on the history of CinePaint (formerly known as Film GIMP) and its disagreements with GIMP. Here the reasons for the fork were mostly technical disagreements, but sure, these were about policy issues like in what way the project should evolve, quick and dirty (then surprisingly followed by let's change the toolkit used) or slowly but steadily towards perfection. Or something like that, but I am not neutral and should probably not say more... (I am in the GIMP camp). --tml
Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Sep 28, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Rob Weir wrote: 2011/9/28 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: You would need to open a JIRA ticket with Infra, to request names. Maybe start with a call on this list for additional blog authors and then send them in a batch. No need for Infrastructure here. Andy Brown and I volunteered to be Admins for the blog. Here are the steps to become an author. (1) Sign up for an account using your apache id on blogs.apache.org. perhaps i am blind but is it possible that we need a JIRA ticket to request the account for blogs.apache.org and then you can grant us authors rights on the AOO blog. (2) Send me an email and I will grant author rights. Since Andy has moved on to other activity if there is someone else familiar with Roller who would care to join me in Admin duties here that would be great. i think that i can do that once my account is working Juergen
EIS replacement needed? WAS Re: why can't I access this address : http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/
Hi there! There is now no one anymore activly maintaining the EIS server, EIS software and EIS database. At Oracle some of my duties was just this but I now have no longer access to this service. It may have worked some time without maintenance but now it´s gone. That means that neither the web application nor the SOAP webservice used by some commandline tools in the build environment will work anymore. Please also note that the EIS source code was closed source and has not been donated to apache. If the apache OOo Community needs a replacement for these services the tool will have to be rewritten from scratch. See also: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/EIS I think using such a tool like EIS to organize workflow between development and QA has proven to be useful in the past and that something like this might also be useful on the new home of openoffice.org at apache. What do others think? Kind regards, Bernd Eilers Am 28.09.2011 10:19, schrieb Alexandro Colorado: Probably the machine was turned off. You can see the source here: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/DEV300/summary also in Apache: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/ On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, Eike posted on 2011-09-11 that this service has stopped working - see http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201109.mbox/%3c20110911141738.gc15...@kulungile.erack.de%3E But, I have no answer for the question why this service is gone. Best regards, Oliver. On 28.09.2011 08:32, Shao Zhi Zhao wrote: hi, why can't I access this address http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/ thanks mail:zhaos...@cn.ibm.com tel:54747 Address:2/F,Ring Bldg. No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software Park, No.8, Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, P.R.China
Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Sep 28, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Rob Weir wrote: 2011/9/28 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: So total silence. Is that the best we can come up with? hopefully not I'll sign up for the next post, planning on one related to the IP review of AOOo, to give the reader some sense of what we're doing and why we can't just immediately release AOOo 3.4.0. Please add your own ideas to the Editoral Calendar and volunteer to write a future post. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA i don't understand where i have to do that. Can you explain it. Wow. Sorry. That was the wrong clipboard buffer. It could have been worse ;-) The editorial calendar is here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Blog And how can a committer request author access to the blog. I can't find the emails about the initial discussion and blog setup ... You would need to open a JIRA ticket with Infra, to request names. Maybe start with a call on this list for additional blog authors and then send them in a batch. No need for Infrastructure here. Andy Brown and I volunteered to be Admins for the blog. Here are the steps to become an author. (1) Sign up for an account using your apache id on blogs.apache.org. (2) Send me an email and I will grant author rights. This is good to know. I think it would be good to record this kind of info in one place, so I've added an FAQ to the PPMC FAQ's called Who Admins/Moderates/Owns X?. It covers mailing lists, wikis, issue tracking, as well as the blog. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html -Rob Since Andy has moved on to other activity if there is someone else familiar with Roller who would care to join me in Admin duties here that would be great. I'm not familiar with Roller, but am willing to learn. I'm very familiar with Wordpress. Regards, Dave Once figured out i will document in the wiki. Thanks! -Rob If we don't start getting some additional volunteers here, I'll propose that we delete the blog altogether. So far, its existence has received more note in the press for lack of updates than for any content there. I'd rather have no blog if we can't do better than that. we should definitely improve our visibility, it's important Juergen
Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
On 9/28/2011 11:58 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: ...snip... Andy Brown and I volunteered to be Admins for the blog. Here are the steps to become an author. Thanks, Dave! One note: once the podling gets some more posts out there, we'll likely also need volunteers (with accounts on blogs.a.o) to moderate comments - otherwise they never get posted in most installs. Several of the other blogs there have all comments moderated, with small groups of volunteers periodically moderating through anything useful, and deleting or spamming the rest. - Shane
Re: Not new but under a new hat
Am 09/28/2011 10:50 AM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: i am not really new here and be one of the initial committers but i would take the opportunity to let you know that i got the chance to work fulltime on the project in the future as an IBM employee. Congratulations for the new job at IBM and for the chance to get paid for working on AOO. :-) Marcus
Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
On Sep 28, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Sep 28, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Rob Weir wrote: 2011/9/28 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: You would need to open a JIRA ticket with Infra, to request names. Maybe start with a call on this list for additional blog authors and then send them in a batch. No need for Infrastructure here. Andy Brown and I volunteered to be Admins for the blog. Here are the steps to become an author. (1) Sign up for an account using your apache id on blogs.apache.org. perhaps i am blind but is it possible that we need a JIRA ticket to request the account for blogs.apache.org and then you can grant us authors rights on the AOO blog. Possibly. What happens when you go to https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/login.rol and enter your apache login credentials? (2) Send me an email and I will grant author rights. Since Andy has moved on to other activity if there is someone else familiar with Roller who would care to join me in Admin duties here that would be great. i think that i can do that once my account is working Regards, Dave Juergen
Re: Diploma thesis: a survey about Oracle's care of the OpenOffice.org community (and not LibreOffice)
On Sep 28, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: On 28 September 2011 07:33, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote: 2011/9/28 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net Hi, first of all, I feel sorry, that I did forward the request to this list. Seems you feel more disturbed than than realizing the chance to help someone with his thesis. I have helped students on their thesis toward FOSS governance and FOSS localization process, but I would be very careful to do on a survey that could be perceived or manipulated to get a non-technical and rather bias view of something that has been discussed over and over. I would be happier if the thesis reffer to an actual technical topic, like how to approach and update the image managing engine, or restore animations on the Flash export module of OOo. Or if there is a better solution to handle SVG. Or address/resolve issues within the latest ODF schema. But I see this a more of a Journalist/PR study more than an actual CS-level study. (I am thinking this student comes from a CS background). It is perfectly legitimate to research social as well as technical aspects of projects. I have a physics background but I researched motivation theory in education for an MSc in education management dissertation. As usual everyone is an expert in education often with no qualifications and no experience apart from going to school :-). I use MySQL, does that make me an expert in coding it? As Andre says, some things in a survey might not be intuitive, that seems like a possible indication that the survey is well designed because it means the respondent is not able to simply tick things at random. (I haven't looked at this particular one in detail so it might or might not apply, but it would be surprising if an academic tutor at a university didn't pick up serious flaws). I wonder if such a reaction would have happened if the questions had all been biased to a LibreOffice view of the world ;-) ? Come on guys, let's be a little more tolerant about these things. If you don't want to take part simply ignore it. If you want to help the guy, fill it in. It's more about him learning than marketing propaganda for any project in any case. Point taken. There was nothing immediately about LibreOffice in the survey after 10 screens. It really seemed to be all about testing opinion about Oracle's stewardship of OpenOffice.org. I was really hoping to slow the inevitable AOOo vs. LO discussion in this thread. That went to another thread... Regards, Dave -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: EIS replacement needed? WAS Re: why can't I access this address : http://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/
Hi Bern; From what I read, I don't think we want to get into all that complexity right now. We have enough work already developing OpenOffice to start developing something like EIS from scratch :-(. Perhaps there something opensource already that we can use to some of the EIS functionality? I doubt it will cover the same functionality but we have some tools that we haven't explored yet. For example gump: http://ci.apache.org/#gump cheers, Pedro. --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Bernd Eilers go...@bernd-eilers.net wrote: ... Hi there! There is now no one anymore activly maintaining the EIS server, EIS software and EIS database. At Oracle some of my duties where just these tasks but I now have no longer access to this service. It may have worked some time without maintenance but now it´s gone. That means that neither the web application nor the SOAP webservice used by some commandline tools in the build environment will work anymore. Please also note that the EIS source code was closed source and has not been donated to apache. If the apache OOo Community needs a replacement for these services this will have to be rewritten from scratch probably with some adaption to some different kind of workflow. See also: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/EIS I think using such a tool like EIS to organize workflow between development and QA has proven to be useful in the past and that something like this might also be useful on the new home of openoffice.org at apache. What do others think? Kind regards, Bernd Eilers
Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652
Am 09/28/2011 01:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I don't think the vendor support lifetime for a consumer OS has bring the end of application support on that OS. What is known is that there will be further service packs, maybe not even OS security patches, but it isn't as if they decay and die. Many machines run much longer than the support life of the OS, and upgrades may not be feasible. +1 I don't see a direct need to drop any OS support only because it is to old or it seems to be. To point to Microsoft and tell the users they don't support it anymore, so we drop the support too isn't a good argument. When we leave the baseline at Windows 2000 (or whereever it is at the moment) and tell the user we can give a guarantee (don't take this word to seriously ;-) ) for WinXP and newer, it should be OK. Then there is still a possibility to get it installed and started on Win2000. The nice thing is a user of Windows 98 or 2000 can still download old versions of OOo and run them. And they can do that for free. And they always will be able to do this. The question is not whether we retroactively support for older versions of Windows. They question is whether we maintain that support going forward, in new releases of the product. Yes, and as long as there are no real technical problems I don't see a need to drop the support. If there *is already* or *will be* a technical limitation (e.g., API things or system integration) that is a hurdle for going on in supporting newer Win versions, then we have a good reason to drop the support for older versions. Otherwise IMHO not. Marcus Outgrowing the size of machine that an older OS runs on (and might be limited to) is a different matter, as is relying on API functions that are not supported that far back. I don't have an opinion about the Win2k versus Windows XP SP2+ choice for OOo. I am just curious to know what the current platform boundaries are and might become for purposes of QA. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Michael Stahl [mailto:m...@openoffice.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 15:50 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652 On 27.09.2011 22:22, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: What is the oldest Windows OS version that Apache OOo 3.4(-dev) will be supported on? How does that compare with the oldest Windows OS version that the last stable release (3.3.0?) of OpenOffice.org is supported on? (If there is a JRE dependency, that is another variant to consider.) AFAIK OOo 3.x Windows baseline is NT 5.0 (Windows 2000); AFAIK this OS version is no longer supported by the vendor. I'd recommend supporting Windows XP and beyond. XP is officially supported by Microsoft until April 2014. I'm certainly not making any effort to maintain or test support for earlier versions. Of course, that doesn't prevent anyone else from testing and patching to support earlier versions. no objection from me to raising the baseline to WindowsXP; IMHO trying to support an OS that the vendor doesn't support any more doesn't make sense.
RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
If you mean ODMA.h, I don't believe there is any dependency on it and you should just get rid of it. If you need to deal with it as third-party code, I can get you a version with a BSD-variant license that applies, although the header itself has not been touched. AIIM approved the license some time ago. I think the simple solution is to remove the ODMA.h header and delete the dialog about offering ODMA selections on Open ... first or not (if that is even present in current OpenOffice.org builds). Post the patch on removing ODMA.h and I'll be happy to commit it [;). - Dennis DETAILS In fact, ODMA.h is not a file anyone would use to bind to the ODMA32.dll, because then ODMA32.dll is required to be on the system. The whole idea is that ODMA32.dll and the present of a DMS that is registered to work with OpenOffice.org is done by discovery, and these are the wrong headers and the wrong protocol for that. If someone wants to figure out a decent binding for ODMA32 (there is no ODMA64 at this time) in the future, I can help with that. I even have better headers and sample code for going through the discovery process. I can even Apache License those [;). (Duhh. I just realized that.) However, I suspect that any further efforts at DMS and Content Management systems would be by tightening the WebDAV integration and also looking into CMIS as the most promising low-hanging fruit for content-management integration. -Original Message- From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 06:05 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license Hi, I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up regarding non-Apache license conform stuff. Looking at the wiki - http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration - provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start. I will create patches for the following Apache license problems: - UnixODBC - dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx - A header from GNU c library - ODMA Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked as solved issues? Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652
Am 09/28/2011 09:13 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 09/28/2011 01:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.orgwrote: I don't think the vendor support lifetime for a consumer OS has bring the end of application support on that OS. What is known is that there will be further service packs, maybe not even OS security patches, but it isn't as if they decay and die. Many machines run much longer than the support life of the OS, and upgrades may not be feasible. +1 I don't see a direct need to drop any OS support only because it is to old or it seems to be. To point to Microsoft and tell the users they don't support it anymore, so we drop the support too isn't a good argument. When we leave the baseline at Windows 2000 (or whereever it is at the moment) and tell the user we can give a guarantee (don't take this word to seriously ;-) ) for WinXP and newer, it should be OK. Then there is still a possibility to get it installed and started on Win2000. The nice thing is a user of Windows 98 or 2000 can still download old versions of OOo and run them. And they can do that for free. And they always will be able to do this. The question is not whether we retroactively support for older versions of Windows. They question is whether we maintain that support going forward, in new releases of the product. Yes, and as long as there are no real technical problems I don't see a need to drop the support. If there *is already* or *will be* a technical limitation (e.g., API things or system integration) that is a hurdle for going on in supporting newer Win versions, then we have a good reason to drop the support for older versions. In reality it works like this: The moment we stop making the proactive effort to test on a platform, the experience of users on that platform will start to degrade. It will degrade over time until it totally fails. So the question is not really about a deliberate effort to drop support for older versions of Windows. The question is whether there are volunteers willing to test and patch the build to support older versions of Windows. If not, then that fact -- not our words -- will determine what versions of Windows are actually supported. Thats the point where I wrote that we (officialyl) support WinXP and newer but it should be still possible to install on older version. Yes, we leave these users a bit alone. However, as long as it's still working it's fine. When we someday come to the point where we have to change something to support the newer Win versions better, then we really have to do drop the support. When the user reports a problem in Win2000 then we should try to look it up and think of a fix. When it's easy then, ok, do it. Otherwise it's maybe the start of the end of supporting the older versions. Marcus Outgrowing the size of machine that an older OS runs on (and might be limited to) is a different matter, as is relying on API functions that are not supported that far back. I don't have an opinion about the Win2k versus Windows XP SP2+ choice for OOo. I am just curious to know what the current platform boundaries are and might become for purposes of QA. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Michael Stahl [mailto:m...@openoffice.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 15:50 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652 On 27.09.2011 22:22, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.orgwrote: What is the oldest Windows OS version that Apache OOo 3.4(-dev) will be supported on? How does that compare with the oldest Windows OS version that the last stable release (3.3.0?) of OpenOffice.org is supported on? (If there is a JRE dependency, that is another variant to consider.) AFAIK OOo 3.x Windows baseline is NT 5.0 (Windows 2000); AFAIK this OS version is no longer supported by the vendor. I'd recommend supporting Windows XP and beyond. XP is officially supported by Microsoft until April 2014. I'm certainly not making any effort to maintain or test support for earlier versions. Of course, that doesn't prevent anyone else from testing and patching to support earlier versions. no objection from me to raising the baseline to WindowsXP; IMHO trying to support an OS that the vendor doesn't support any more doesn't make sense.
RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
Well... now that I think about it ... The linux header (which is actually an GNU iconv header), can probably be dealt without too. The MIT licensed header in XFree86 is not on X.Org anymore so they did something about it. Is OOo on a opengrok anywhere? It would be good to see where such headers are used. Pedro. --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: From: Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 2:40 PM If you mean ODMA.h, I don't believe there is any dependency on it and you should just get rid of it. If you need to deal with it as third-party code, I can get you a version with a BSD-variant license that applies, although the header itself has not been touched. AIIM approved the license some time ago. I think the simple solution is to remove the ODMA.h header and delete the dialog about offering ODMA selections on Open ... first or not (if that is even present in current OpenOffice.org builds). Post the patch on removing ODMA.h and I'll be happy to commit it [;). - Dennis DETAILS In fact, ODMA.h is not a file anyone would use to bind to the ODMA32.dll, because then ODMA32.dll is required to be on the system. The whole idea is that ODMA32.dll and the present of a DMS that is registered to work with OpenOffice.org is done by discovery, and these are the wrong headers and the wrong protocol for that. If someone wants to figure out a decent binding for ODMA32 (there is no ODMA64 at this time) in the future, I can help with that. I even have better headers and sample code for going through the discovery process. I can even Apache License those [;). (Duhh. I just realized that.) However, I suspect that any further efforts at DMS and Content Management systems would be by tightening the WebDAV integration and also looking into CMIS as the most promising low-hanging fruit for content-management integration. -Original Message- From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 06:05 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license Hi, I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up regarding non-Apache license conform stuff. Looking at the wiki - http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration - provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start. I will create patches for the following Apache license problems: - UnixODBC - dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx - A header from GNU c library - ODMA Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked as solved issues? Best regards, Oliver.
Re: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: If you mean ODMA.h, I don't believe there is any dependency on it and you should just get rid of it. If you need to deal with it as third-party code, I can get you a version with a BSD-variant license that applies, although the header itself has not been touched. AIIM approved the license some time ago. I think the simple solution is to remove the ODMA.h header and delete the dialog about offering ODMA selections on Open ... first or not (if that is even present in current OpenOffice.org builds). Post the patch on removing ODMA.h and I'll be happy to commit it [;). - Dennis DETAILS In fact, ODMA.h is not a file anyone would use to bind to the ODMA32.dll, because then ODMA32.dll is required to be on the system. The whole idea is that ODMA32.dll and the present of a DMS that is registered to work with OpenOffice.org is done by discovery, and these are the wrong headers and the wrong protocol for that. If someone wants to figure out a decent binding for ODMA32 (there is no ODMA64 at this time) in the future, I can help with that. I even have better headers and sample code for going through the discovery process. I can even Apache License those [;). (Duhh. I just realized that.) We would welcome a contribution under ALv2. Of course that will require an iCLA, an SGA, a criminal background check and a body cavity search. ;-) However, I suspect that any further efforts at DMS and Content Management systems would be by tightening the WebDAV integration and also looking into CMIS as the most promising low-hanging fruit for content-management integration. -Original Message- From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 06:05 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license Hi, I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up regarding non-Apache license conform stuff. Looking at the wiki - http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration - provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start. I will create patches for the following Apache license problems: - UnixODBC - dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx - A header from GNU c library - ODMA Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked as solved issues? Best regards, Oliver.
RE: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]
The problem with bringing the 3rd party software completely into the SVN tree and modifying it in the tree has to do with the license the updated software is under. In that case, there *is* a code provenance issue and I believe it crosses a line that the Apache Software Foundation is unwilling to cross with regard to the integrity of its code bases. The current patches to Boost, for example, do not change the license on the code and preserve the Boost license. But since this is ephemeral and the source is never in the SVN tree (is that correct?) the derivative use disappears at the end of a build. It is sufficient then to include the dependency in the NOTICE for the release and not worry further. Also, the current dependency is several releases behind the current Boost release. This might not matter - the specific Boost libraries that are used might not be effected. But there is a release synchronization issue. A fork would have to be maintained. Also, the dependencies are managed better now, rather than having the entire Boost library installed for cherry picking. (This will all change at some point, since Boost is being incorporated into ISO C++. It is probably best to wait for that to ripple out into the compiler distributions.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Pedro F. Giffuni [mailto:giffu...@tutopia.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 08:32 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?] FWIW; I don't like the patches because I can't really examine well the code, besides this is something the VCS handles acceptably: commit the original sourcecode and then apply the patches in a different commit. If we start with up to date versions there would not be much trouble. just my $0.02, not an objection. Pedro. --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: ... I wouldn't give up the patches, as they allow to handle updates better. This would cause a problem, as direct changes to the 3rd party stuff without additional authorization (means: changing the source code must not happen accidently, only when the 3rd party code gets an update from upstream) must be prevented, while still patch files must be allowed to added, removed, or changed, not the original source code. If that wasn't possible or too cumbersome, checking in the tarballs in 3rdparty would be better. i also wouldn't give up the patches and for that reason i would like to move forward for now with keeping the tarballs as proposed. But i like the name 3rdparty for the directory and we can later on change it from the tarballs to the unpacked code it we see demand for it. At the moment it's just easier to keep the tarballs and focus on other work. As svn users never download the complete history as DSCM users do, the pain of binary files in the repo isn't that hard. In case AOOo moved to a DSCM again later, the tarballs could be moved out again easily. agree, we don't really loose anything, can change if necessary and can continue with our work Juergen
Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
On 19.09.2011 02:27, Rob Weir wrote: 1) We need to get all files needed for the build into SVN. Right now there are some that are copied down from the OpenOffice.org website during the build's bootstrap process. Until we get the files all in one place it is hard to get a comprehensive view of our dependencies. If you want svn to be the place for the IP review, we have to do it in two steps. There are some cws for post-3.4 that bring in new files. Setting up a branch now to bring them to svn will create additional work now that IMHO should better be done later. 2) Continue the CWS integrations. Along with 1) this ensures that all the code we need for the release is in SVN. see above e) (Hypothetically) files that are not under an OSS license at all. E.g., a Microsoft header file. These must be removed. I assume that you are talking about header files with a MS copyright, not header files generated from e.g. Visual Studio. In my understanding these files should be considered as contributed under the rules of the OOo project and so now their copyright owner is Oracle. 5) We should to track the resolution of each file, and do this publicly. The audit trail is important. Some ways we could do this might be: a) Track this in SVN properties. IMHO this is the best solution. svn is the place of truth if it comes down to files. The second best solution would be to have one text file per build unit (that would be a gbuild makefile in the new build system) or per module (that would be a sub folder of the sub-repos). The file should be checked in in svn. Everything else (spreadsheets or whatsoever) could be generated from that, in case anyone had a need for a spreadsheet with 6 rows containing license information. ;-) Regards, Mathias
Re: [LINUX-BUILD] Details of Fedora 14 and 15 x68_64 build
On 27.09.2011 04:36, Carl Marcum wrote: As of Repo version 1175305 I can Build on Fedora 14 and 15 x86_64. Thank you Ariel for helping me get the first one completed. I found that there is a problem trying to to build hsqldb using java 1.7 due to the build.xml only having targets for java up to 1.6 so I switched back to 1.6 for the complete build. Starting with a Fedora basic desktop install. I used yum to install the packages listed on the Fedora build instructions [1]. I needed to add librsvg2-devel and junit4. The first problem is a bug, libsvg shouldn't be needed in a non-copyleft build (as it's LGPL licensed). junit4 indeed is needed, but can be made obsolete by using --without-junit in configure. Thanks for reporting your results, Mathias
Re: Iaccessible2 in OOo
Am 09/28/2011 03:47 PM, schrieb Jean-Philippe MENGUAL: Hi, Very interesting answer, thanks: I say 'potentially' as the developers in the community will make it a priority if, and only if, it is clear there is a strong demand for IA2 and someone leads the work and use of it. So I would encourage you to continue your work of letting us know of the need and also suggest you guide other users and developers who require IA2 support in AOO to join in the discussion here. A good approach would be to get folks to blog about why it is important and we can post links here. That way the AOO community will be encouraged to work on ensuring there is an open and accessible Office suite available for Windows. In fact there may eventually be even more choice for users if AOO becomes the core used by other projects, as indeed it has the potential to be. I will try doing that. But I'd like to mention one problem and several elements which make me think I represent an enormous part of users who want IA2 to be integrated. The problem is that I have feedbacks essentially from France or French-speaking people, and they decided me to be intermediate between English-speaking community and them. So, they have difficulties to write here directly. The language is a problem for the major part of them. However, several things make me think there's a large demand: - In the public administrations in France, where OOo is choosen, we have thousands of people who work and who are blind or sight-impaired; - The workgroup Accessibilité et logiciel libre (A11y and Free software), from April (the main French organization which Promote the Free Software in France) asked for this evolution. It appeared in our bug tracker (used to enable not English-speaking users to report problems so that we forward, as I do now). 4 bugs appear about this issue. - The LibreOffice project expressed the desire to wait for AOOo integration to integrate itself IA2 in their utility. - The problems with OOo are very often denounced on French mailing list of blind people (for instance, ALLOS mailing list). - The CFPSAA, an official enormous organization which defends the blind people rights, published, this June, a newsletter where they explained that migrating a desktop to OOo was a mistake as it's not accessible (it's a pitty! ). I tried answering and communicating about this, but of course if such official organization has this approach, it proves the need. - I met 60 people in France IRL a few weeks ago, to show them what free software gives to accessibility. The cain problem where I had to fight was OOo. Anyway I'll forward your appeal, but I'd like you to know that even if I'm alone to write, it's a time and language problem. But thousands of people asked me to do that. It's really major, that's why I try speaking directly to the dev today. Because when that is fixed, a major limitation will be removed to migrating to Free software with NVDA and other assistive technologies. If you want some tests, of course tell me. I can test, make other tests, as intermediate. Thanks a lot for underlining your position with some details. I did't know this and hadn't thought about such a hugh impact. As I wrote the IA2 technology is coming (AFAIK) from IBM. With Rob and the other guys we have some employees that can push the integration of the IA2 code now better than in the past. So, I'm very confident that we can see big parts but hopefully the complete code in a AOO relase. However, I think you have to wait after the 3.4 release. I hope that we'll have a rough timeline and roadmap for things after the 3.4 release. Please have a look for it and shout when you see that IA2 has not the priority that it should have. I hope the time to wait is not to long for you. ;-) Marcus It's great to hear from Marcus that dev work is under way. It's up to us in the accessibility community to 'cheer them on'. So please do encourage the NVDA community to join in here. I'll ping the developers and let them know of your interest and this thread that you started. Ok I'll write to NVDA too. I stay available, Best regards, Thanks again 1: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/accessibility/iaccessible2 Steve Lee OpenDirective 2011/9/27 Jean-Philippe MENGUALmengualjean...@free.fr: Ok thanks very much for this interesting answer. If you need some dialogue with NVDA or Orca (Linux), and if I can help as intermediate, no problem, don't hesitate. I follow the situation as I consider it's a very important progress to promote better free software in general. Thanks for your interest. Regards, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL Le mercredi 28 septembre 2011 à 00:05 +0200, Marcus (OOo) a écrit : Am 09/27/2011 08:58 PM, schrieb Jean-Philippe MENGUAL: Hi Jean-Philippe, As ordinary blind user, I work very much to promote OOo and accessibility free software for blind people. The current problem is that public administrations, in
RE: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]
The idea (not originally mine) is to have keep only compatible licensed code under an isolated (3rdparty) directory. I think on the long run we should try to use the system versions of such software when available, and every linux/bsd distribution is probably doing that for LO already. Pedro. --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The problem with bringing the 3rd party software completely into the SVN tree and modifying it in the tree has to do with the license the updated software is under. In that case, there *is* a code provenance issue and I believe it crosses a line that the Apache Software Foundation is unwilling to cross with regard to the integrity of its code bases. The current patches to Boost, for example, do not change the license on the code and preserve the Boost license. But since this is ephemeral and the source is never in the SVN tree (is that correct?) the derivative use disappears at the end of a build. It is sufficient then to include the dependency in the NOTICE for the release and not worry further. Also, the current dependency is several releases behind the current Boost release. This might not matter - the specific Boost libraries that are used might not be effected. But there is a release synchronization issue. A fork would have to be maintained. Also, the dependencies are managed better now, rather than having the entire Boost library installed for cherry picking. (This will all change at some point, since Boost is being incorporated into ISO C++. It is probably best to wait for that to ripple out into the compiler distributions.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Pedro F. Giffuni [mailto:giffu...@tutopia.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 08:32 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?] FWIW; I don't like the patches because I can't really examine well the code, besides this is something the VCS handles acceptably: commit the original sourcecode and then apply the patches in a different commit. If we start with up to date versions there would not be much trouble. just my $0.02, not an objection. Pedro. --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: ... I wouldn't give up the patches, as they allow to handle updates better. This would cause a problem, as direct changes to the 3rd party stuff without additional authorization (means: changing the source code must not happen accidently, only when the 3rd party code gets an update from upstream) must be prevented, while still patch files must be allowed to added, removed, or changed, not the original source code. If that wasn't possible or too cumbersome, checking in the tarballs in 3rdparty would be better. i also wouldn't give up the patches and for that reason i would like to move forward for now with keeping the tarballs as proposed. But i like the name 3rdparty for the directory and we can later on change it from the tarballs to the unpacked code it we see demand for it. At the moment it's just easier to keep the tarballs and focus on other work. As svn users never download the complete history as DSCM users do, the pain of binary files in the repo isn't that hard. In case AOOo moved to a DSCM again later, the tarballs could be moved out again easily. agree, we don't really loose anything, can change if necessary and can continue with our work Juergen
RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
ODMA.h would not be a contribution to Apache. It would be an updated file with a BSD-license adaptation notice and an AIIM Copyright Notice. (Only my urologist gets to do cavity searches.) If I spiffed up the files and reference code that are actually needed to have a production-quality application be ODMA-aware, I would put those under an ALv2. I would also use appropriate NOTICE about AIIM and the original work that my derivatives are based on. At least one of the multiple header files I use is a derivative work, so I would have to deal with that. You'd have to squint real hard to see the others as derivative works, but I think it would be cool to acknowledge the AIIM origin anyhow. These would be published to a SourceForge project that I already have. Reliance on them by Apache OOo or any other Apache project can be by the usual third-party incorporation procedure. I will make sure that the provenance is as clean as it can possibly be. I have no desire to take their availability to Apache projects any farther than that. I see no reason to donate the code to Apache OOo since that is not the right place to maintain it. - Dennis SOME ANALYSIS: I think the odds are low that this would be of interest to Apache OOo, since ODMA does not fit the folder-oriented model that the UNO server uses to access documents in repositories. ODMA actually takes a different level of integration. ODMA can be thought of as a hybrid of ODBC and TWAIN (remember that one?). One peculiarity of its integration model (out of many) is that it produces modal dialogs against the application's window handle. This made the Java integration I undertook quite thrilling. Oh, and it is not Unicode enabled. That should be enough to indicate why this is not low-hanging fruit. Also, it only works on Windows. I count at least 4 strikes right there. I have some blog posts that go into further details, if anyone is that curious. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:54 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: [ ... ] In fact, ODMA.h is not a file anyone would use to bind to the ODMA32.dll, because then ODMA32.dll is required to be on the system. The whole idea is that ODMA32.dll and the present of a DMS that is registered to work with OpenOffice.org is done by discovery, and these are the wrong headers and the wrong protocol for that. If someone wants to figure out a decent binding for ODMA32 (there is no ODMA64 at this time) in the future, I can help with that. I even have better headers and sample code for going through the discovery process. I can even Apache License those [;). (Duhh. I just realized that.) We would welcome a contribution under ALv2. Of course that will require an iCLA, an SGA, a criminal background check and a body cavity search. ;-) [ ... ]
RE: Diploma thesis: a survey about Oracle's care of the OpenOffice.org community (and not LibreOffice)
What is not obvious in the survey is that the answer to the first question apparently branches you to a different remainder of the survey. It also doesn't even consider folks who contribute to both projects until near the end. I have communicated my feedback on the survey itself privately. There is no benefit in hashing over it here. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:30 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: fabian.dup...@student.uibk.ac.at Subject: Re: Diploma thesis: a survey about Oracle's care of the OpenOffice.org community (and not LibreOffice) On Sep 28, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: On 28 September 2011 07:33, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote: 2011/9/28 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net Hi, first of all, I feel sorry, that I did forward the request to this list. Seems you feel more disturbed than than realizing the chance to help someone with his thesis. I have helped students on their thesis toward FOSS governance and FOSS localization process, but I would be very careful to do on a survey that could be perceived or manipulated to get a non-technical and rather bias view of something that has been discussed over and over. I would be happier if the thesis reffer to an actual technical topic, like how to approach and update the image managing engine, or restore animations on the Flash export module of OOo. Or if there is a better solution to handle SVG. Or address/resolve issues within the latest ODF schema. But I see this a more of a Journalist/PR study more than an actual CS-level study. (I am thinking this student comes from a CS background). It is perfectly legitimate to research social as well as technical aspects of projects. I have a physics background but I researched motivation theory in education for an MSc in education management dissertation. As usual everyone is an expert in education often with no qualifications and no experience apart from going to school :-). I use MySQL, does that make me an expert in coding it? As Andre says, some things in a survey might not be intuitive, that seems like a possible indication that the survey is well designed because it means the respondent is not able to simply tick things at random. (I haven't looked at this particular one in detail so it might or might not apply, but it would be surprising if an academic tutor at a university didn't pick up serious flaws). I wonder if such a reaction would have happened if the questions had all been biased to a LibreOffice view of the world ;-) ? Come on guys, let's be a little more tolerant about these things. If you don't want to take part simply ignore it. If you want to help the guy, fill it in. It's more about him learning than marketing propaganda for any project in any case. Point taken. There was nothing immediately about LibreOffice in the survey after 10 screens. It really seemed to be all about testing opinion about Oracle's stewardship of OpenOffice.org. I was really hoping to slow the inevitable AOOo vs. LO discussion in this thread. That went to another thread... Regards, Dave -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
RE: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652
Marcus, I share your thinking about this. If you or Oliver or someone can put a recent successful trial build where I can get my hands on the installer version, I will be happy to perform platform-confirmation installs. This would help me set up a routine for doing that kind of QA in the future. (For different internationalization variations, I can't do that alone and there needs to be help from the NL community.) - Dennis MY THINKING I agree a smoke test against Windows 2000 and even Windows 98 would be good. It would be useful if the colleague here who still has a Windows 95 installation could confirm some things too. If there is a dependency on a newer API entry, that typically shows up at load time or shortly thereafter. I suspect Unicode retrofitting will be the deal breaker, but it is useful to find out and to let users know. The other prospect is if there is dependency on a JVM or even VC++ RTL that is not supported that far back. If an artificial cut-off can be avoided, that is a good thing. It is necessary to do some sort of minimal testing to see if the current install works or not, and if it doesn't, what users who try it should expect. I am happy to test for that. It is within my competence and, I believe, the capabilities of the Windows 7 Virtual PC. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:04 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652 Am 09/28/2011 01:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I don't think the vendor support lifetime for a consumer OS has bring the end of application support on that OS. What is known is that there will be further service packs, maybe not even OS security patches, but it isn't as if they decay and die. Many machines run much longer than the support life of the OS, and upgrades may not be feasible. +1 I don't see a direct need to drop any OS support only because it is to old or it seems to be. To point to Microsoft and tell the users they don't support it anymore, so we drop the support too isn't a good argument. When we leave the baseline at Windows 2000 (or whereever it is at the moment) and tell the user we can give a guarantee (don't take this word to seriously ;-) ) for WinXP and newer, it should be OK. Then there is still a possibility to get it installed and started on Win2000. The nice thing is a user of Windows 98 or 2000 can still download old versions of OOo and run them. And they can do that for free. And they always will be able to do this. The question is not whether we retroactively support for older versions of Windows. They question is whether we maintain that support going forward, in new releases of the product. Yes, and as long as there are no real technical problems I don't see a need to drop the support. If there *is already* or *will be* a technical limitation (e.g., API things or system integration) that is a hurdle for going on in supporting newer Win versions, then we have a good reason to drop the support for older versions. Otherwise IMHO not. Marcus Outgrowing the size of machine that an older OS runs on (and might be limited to) is a different matter, as is relying on API functions that are not supported that far back. I don't have an opinion about the Win2k versus Windows XP SP2+ choice for OOo. I am just curious to know what the current platform boundaries are and might become for purposes of QA. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Michael Stahl [mailto:m...@openoffice.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 15:50 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652 On 27.09.2011 22:22, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: What is the oldest Windows OS version that Apache OOo 3.4(-dev) will be supported on? How does that compare with the oldest Windows OS version that the last stable release (3.3.0?) of OpenOffice.org is supported on? (If there is a JRE dependency, that is another variant to consider.) AFAIK OOo 3.x Windows baseline is NT 5.0 (Windows 2000); AFAIK this OS version is no longer supported by the vendor. I'd recommend supporting Windows XP and beyond. XP is officially supported by Microsoft until April 2014. I'm certainly not making any effort to maintain or test support for earlier versions. Of course, that doesn't prevent anyone else from testing and patching to support earlier versions. no objection from me to raising the baseline to WindowsXP; IMHO trying to support an OS that the vendor doesn't support any more doesn't make sense.
Re: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]
On 28.09.2011 17:32, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: FWIW; I don't like the patches because I can't really examine well the code, besides this is something the VCS handles acceptably: commit the original sourcecode and then apply the patches in a different commit. If we start with up to date versions there would not be much trouble. if we didn't have many thousands of lines of patches to rebase, then upgrading to less outdated versions wouldn't be such a PITA. sadly in many cases upstreaming patches was never sufficiently high on the priority list to actually get done... -- Dealing with failure is easy: Work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: You've solved the wrong problem. Work hard to improve. -- Alan Perlis
Re: Forums not reachable
Christian-- Can you supply an update to whatever is going on on this wiki page? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Community+Forums The issue Terry refers to has been closed and the response is confusing to me, but perhaps it makes sense to someone else. After my panic about the wiki yesterday, I am thinking more about some of the other responses to that, adn will weigh in again later this week after I do more investigation. However, the forums are another matter. I, for one, would really like to get an idea of what's going on with this. Thanks. On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.comwrote: Wasn't there going to be a proposal from the Forum community regarding moving the Forums to Apache Infrastructure? I recall activity on the the CWiki about it, but nothing has happened here to move the process forward. The proposal is still in progress. There is still no agreement on if it actually will happen. Cheers, Christian Regards, Dave On Sep 28, 2011, at 3:28 AM, drew wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:00 +0200, floris v wrote: Op 28-9-2011 8:58, Rory O'Farrell schreef: On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:50:41 +0200 Reizinger Zoltánzreizin...@hdsnet.hu wrote: The forums not reachable, at least to me, on address http://user.services.openoffice.org Somebody knows why? Not reachable here either, Zoltan, for at least the last 36 hours. A posting on oooforum.org notes that the site is down, but gives no reason http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=131317 I noticed it too, and I'm an admin at the Dutch nl forum. But I'm as ignorant about what's going on as everybody else. :=( You are right in that no one knows - you really should be following the user mailing list [the new one not the old one], this was the only topic talked about on the list yesterday ... then again, it's not like the list is actually getting any use otherwise anyway - but still. So, I've been up since 4 AM, my time, hoping to hear something and now it's 11:30 Hamburg time - still nothing - I did just get an email (an hour ago now) from Terry so everyone is waiting to pounce, but as of 5 minutes ago still unable to connect to the server in any way at all. -- http://www.grobmeier.de -- --- MzK There is no such thing as coincidence. -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
opengrok (was: Re: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license)
On 28.09.2011 21:52, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: Is OOo on a opengrok anywhere? It would be good to see where such headers are used. this one still seems to work: http://svn.services.openoffice.org/opengrok there is also this one, but of course it has a rather different source tree so such questions can probably not be answered definitely for AOOo: http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/
RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
--- On Wed, 9/28/11, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: Well... now that I think about it ... The linux header (which is actually an GNU iconv header), can probably be dealt without too. The MIT licensed header in XFree86 is not on X.Org anymore so they did something about it. X.Org uses git and everything git makes itself very difficult to find (or perhaps it's just me against git!) I found this minor enhancement in X.org sources (MIT license) that we may want to carry too: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libX11/commit/?id=83ce4daefdf544f801c7d666c89162690a36ce41 They are just comments though, nothing important. Is OOo on a opengrok anywhere? It would be good to see where such headers are used. (Thanks to mst@ for the link.) FWIW, the header is only used here: hwpfilter/source/hcode.cpp Looks pretty easy to just replace it with the XFree86 version. Pedro. From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 06:05 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license Hi, I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up regarding non-Apache license conform stuff. Looking at the wiki - http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration - provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start. I will create patches for the following Apache license problems: - UnixODBC - dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx - A header from GNU c library - ODMA Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked as solved issues? Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652
Am 09/28/2011 11:56 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: Marcus, I share your thinking about this. If you or Oliver or someone can put a recent successful trial build where I can get my hands on the installer version, I will be happy to perform platform-confirmation installs. This would help me set up a routine for doing that kind of QA in the future. (For different internationalization variations, I can't do that alone and there needs to be help from the NL community.) I'm not a developer nor have I tried to build OOo from source for myself. (yes, I know, shame on me. ;-( ) However, I can offer some help to get some basic tests done for Win2000. A running version in a VM should be enough. MY THINKING I agree a smoke test against Windows 2000 and even Windows 98 would be good. It would be useful if the colleague here who still has a Windows 95 installation could confirm some things too. I remember that some code parts were deleted for supporting Win95/98/ME in the past. So, I'm pretty sure that it will not work on these Win versions. So, please correct me if I'm wrong but when we speak about supporting older versions than WinXP it's only Win2000 we speak about. Marcus If there is a dependency on a newer API entry, that typically shows up at load time or shortly thereafter. I suspect Unicode retrofitting will be the deal breaker, but it is useful to find out and to let users know. The other prospect is if there is dependency on a JVM or even VC++ RTL that is not supported that far back. If an artificial cut-off can be avoided, that is a good thing. It is necessary to do some sort of minimal testing to see if the current install works or not, and if it doesn't, what users who try it should expect. I am happy to test for that. It is within my competence and, I believe, the capabilities of the Windows 7 Virtual PC. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:04 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652 Am 09/28/2011 01:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I don't think the vendor support lifetime for a consumer OS has bring the end of application support on that OS. What is known is that there will be further service packs, maybe not even OS security patches, but it isn't as if they decay and die. Many machines run much longer than the support life of the OS, and upgrades may not be feasible. +1 I don't see a direct need to drop any OS support only because it is to old or it seems to be. To point to Microsoft and tell the users they don't support it anymore, so we drop the support too isn't a good argument. When we leave the baseline at Windows 2000 (or whereever it is at the moment) and tell the user we can give a guarantee (don't take this word to seriously ;-) ) for WinXP and newer, it should be OK. Then there is still a possibility to get it installed and started on Win2000. The nice thing is a user of Windows 98 or 2000 can still download old versions of OOo and run them. And they can do that for free. And they always will be able to do this. The question is not whether we retroactively support for older versions of Windows. They question is whether we maintain that support going forward, in new releases of the product. Yes, and as long as there are no real technical problems I don't see a need to drop the support. If there *is already* or *will be* a technical limitation (e.g., API things or system integration) that is a hurdle for going on in supporting newer Win versions, then we have a good reason to drop the support for older versions. Otherwise IMHO not. Marcus Outgrowing the size of machine that an older OS runs on (and might be limited to) is a different matter, as is relying on API functions that are not supported that far back. I don't have an opinion about the Win2k versus Windows XP SP2+ choice for OOo. I am just curious to know what the current platform boundaries are and might become for purposes of QA. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Michael Stahl [mailto:m...@openoffice.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 15:50 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652 On 27.09.2011 22:22, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: What is the oldest Windows OS version that Apache OOo 3.4(-dev) will be supported on? How does that compare with the oldest Windows OS version that the last stable release (3.3.0?) of OpenOffice.org is supported on? (If there is a JRE dependency, that is another variant to consider.) AFAIK OOo 3.x Windows baseline is NT 5.0 (Windows 2000); AFAIK this OS version is no longer supported by the vendor. I'd recommend
RE: A systematic approach to IP review?
It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any kind are copyrightable subject matter. I would think that files generated by Visual Studio should just be regenerated, especially if this has to do with preprocessor pre-compilation, project boiler-plate (and even build/make) files, MIDL-compiled files, resource-compiler output, and the like. (I assume there are no MFC dependencies unless MFC has somehow shown up under VC++ 2008 Express Edition or the corresponding SDK -- I am behind the times. I thought the big issue was ATL.) Meanwhile, I favor what you say about having a file at the folder level of the buildable components. It strikes me as a visible way to ensure that the IP review has been completed and is current. It also has great transparency and accountability since the document is in the SVN itself. It also survives being extracted from the SVN, included in a tar-ball, etc. In short: nice! - Dennis -Original Message- From: Mathias Bauer [mailto:mathias_ba...@gmx.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 04:25 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A systematic approach to IP review? On 19.09.2011 02:27, Rob Weir wrote: 1) We need to get all files needed for the build into SVN. Right now there are some that are copied down from the OpenOffice.org website during the build's bootstrap process. Until we get the files all in one place it is hard to get a comprehensive view of our dependencies. If you want svn to be the place for the IP review, we have to do it in two steps. There are some cws for post-3.4 that bring in new files. Setting up a branch now to bring them to svn will create additional work now that IMHO should better be done later. 2) Continue the CWS integrations. Along with 1) this ensures that all the code we need for the release is in SVN. see above e) (Hypothetically) files that are not under an OSS license at all. E.g., a Microsoft header file. These must be removed. I assume that you are talking about header files with a MS copyright, not header files generated from e.g. Visual Studio. In my understanding these files should be considered as contributed under the rules of the OOo project and so now their copyright owner is Oracle. 5) We should to track the resolution of each file, and do this publicly. The audit trail is important. Some ways we could do this might be: a) Track this in SVN properties. IMHO this is the best solution. svn is the place of truth if it comes down to files. The second best solution would be to have one text file per build unit (that would be a gbuild makefile in the new build system) or per module (that would be a sub folder of the sub-repos). The file should be checked in in svn. Everything else (spreadsheets or whatsoever) could be generated from that, in case anyone had a need for a spreadsheet with 6 rows containing license information. ;-) Regards, Mathias
EIS CWS data
EIS seems to be dead. some months ago somebody (and i'm too lazy to dig up who to thank) uploaded a dump of the CWS data here, guess that's all we have now: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods
Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any kind are copyrightable subject matter. I would think that files generated by Visual Studio should just be regenerated, especially if this has to do with preprocessor pre-compilation, project boiler-plate (and even build/make) files, MIDL-compiled files, resource-compiler output, and the like. That is my understanding as well, wrt computer-generated files. However the lack of copyright does not mean lack of concern. For example, some code generation applications have a license that puts additional restrictions on the generated code. Some versions of GNU Bison, the YACC variant, did that. (I assume there are no MFC dependencies unless MFC has somehow shown up under VC++ 2008 Express Edition or the corresponding SDK -- I am behind the times. I thought the big issue was ATL.) Meanwhile, I favor what you say about having a file at the folder level of the buildable components. It strikes me as a visible way to ensure that the IP review has been completed and is current. It also has great transparency and accountability since the document is in the SVN itself. It also survives being extracted from the SVN, included in a tar-ball, etc. In short: nice! - Dennis -Original Message- From: Mathias Bauer [mailto:mathias_ba...@gmx.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 04:25 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A systematic approach to IP review? On 19.09.2011 02:27, Rob Weir wrote: 1) We need to get all files needed for the build into SVN. Right now there are some that are copied down from the OpenOffice.org website during the build's bootstrap process. Until we get the files all in one place it is hard to get a comprehensive view of our dependencies. If you want svn to be the place for the IP review, we have to do it in two steps. There are some cws for post-3.4 that bring in new files. Setting up a branch now to bring them to svn will create additional work now that IMHO should better be done later. 2) Continue the CWS integrations. Along with 1) this ensures that all the code we need for the release is in SVN. see above e) (Hypothetically) files that are not under an OSS license at all. E.g., a Microsoft header file. These must be removed. I assume that you are talking about header files with a MS copyright, not header files generated from e.g. Visual Studio. In my understanding these files should be considered as contributed under the rules of the OOo project and so now their copyright owner is Oracle. 5) We should to track the resolution of each file, and do this publicly. The audit trail is important. Some ways we could do this might be: a) Track this in SVN properties. IMHO this is the best solution. svn is the place of truth if it comes down to files. The second best solution would be to have one text file per build unit (that would be a gbuild makefile in the new build system) or per module (that would be a sub folder of the sub-repos). The file should be checked in in svn. Everything else (spreadsheets or whatsoever) could be generated from that, in case anyone had a need for a spreadsheet with 6 rows containing license information. ;-) Regards, Mathias
Re: [LINUX-BUILD] Details of Fedora 14 and 15 x68_64 build
On 09/28/2011 04:41 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote: On 27.09.2011 04:36, Carl Marcum wrote: As of Repo version 1175305 I can Build on Fedora 14 and 15 x86_64. Thank you Ariel for helping me get the first one completed. I found that there is a problem trying to to build hsqldb using java 1.7 due to the build.xml only having targets for java up to 1.6 so I switched back to 1.6 for the complete build. Starting with a Fedora basic desktop install. I used yum to install the packages listed on the Fedora build instructions [1]. I needed to add librsvg2-devel and junit4. The first problem is a bug, libsvg shouldn't be needed in a non-copyleft build (as it's LGPL licensed). junit4 indeed is needed, but can be made obsolete by using --without-junit in configure. I didn't specify any configure options other than --enable-verbose. I had configure list them for me but I have to admit I didn't research them all for what they did. I was trying to build without skipping anything not knowing yet what's necessary or not. I can understand non-GPL one. Are there a recommended combination of configure options we should be using when testing builds for AOOo? Thanks for reporting your results, Mathias Thanks, Carl
Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any kind are copyrightable subject matter. I'd imagine that Pixar, for instance, would have a problem with that blanket statement... The very existence of this paragraph in the Bison manual : http://www.gnu.org/s/bison/manual/bison.html#Conditions also raise doubt as the the validity of the premise. Norbert
Re: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language
On 09/28/2011 01:29 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Carl Marcumcmar...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, I wanted to gauge the interest in including Groovy [1] as a scripting language. For those not familiar, Groovy is a dynamic language for the JVM that includes features like closures, builders, and dynamic typing. There is currently a Groovy For OpenOffice extension [2] for this available under LGPL. I have contacted the author regarding additionally licensing the extension as Apache and he would be willing to do that to include it. Groovy itself is under the Apache 2.0 so I thought it may be a good fit. My biggest reservation toward this is if groovy makes OOo even more heavy. Meaning that if it get bundled in, it will create a similar effect to Python runtime within OpenOffice.org. I haven't look into it yet, but I think the big part is the JVM that is already included anyway. The groovy jar is about 2MB and the complete extension oxt is about 8 Mb I believe. So there are some spring cleaning that needs to happen to python, meaning removing all modules and files that are not needed by OOo and maybe even adding some files that will ease the development of Python in the scripting framework ie. TCL and others. On a similar venue, I will recommend that adding Groovy would also need bootstrap to minimize the overall size impact of the bundle. At the same time many projects to improve the development of extensions have been idle including a Java-GUI development environment and UNO-base IDE for Python and other scripting languages (like Beanshell, and others. Hopefully not idle for much longer :) Of course the smartest and quickest thing to do is to make the Basic IDE/GUI designer compliant with the rest of the languages (Java, Python, Beanshell, ... Groovy). I am willing to work on this if there is interest. Best regards, Carl [1] http://groovy.codehaus.org/ [2] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/GroovyForOpenOffice Best regards, Carl
Wiki status and freeze date?
I want to know since when is the wiki in the apache server been on the server. Is there any plans to sync it with the one on the wiki.services.openoffice.org. I got some ongoing work and would need to sync it down to the apache location at ooo-wiki.apache.org. Regards -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
RE: A systematic approach to IP review?
I'll stand by my original statement. I'm not going to get into the Pixar case since it doesn't apply here. The Bison manual may have license conditions on what can be done with the generated artifact, but I suggest that is not about copyrightable subject matter in the artifact. A similar condition would be one in, let's say for a hypothetical case, Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition requiring that generated code be run on Windows. It's not about copyright. And I agree, one must understand license conditions that apply to the tool used to make the generated artifacts. I did neglect to consider that. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthieb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 16:41 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Re: A systematic approach to IP review? On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any kind are copyrightable subject matter. I'd imagine that Pixar, for instance, would have a problem with that blanket statement... The very existence of this paragraph in the Bison manual : http://www.gnu.org/s/bison/manual/bison.html#Conditions also raise doubt as the the validity of the premise. Norbert
RE: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652
The only reason for testing the installer on Win32 platforms older than Windows 2000 is to find out how they fail. If they don't fail that is interesting too, but I understand it is not part of any agreed support. If they fail, they won't be fixed. I guess Oliver is our source for fresh Windows builds to try testing. - Dennis Funny, I just assumed you were a developer. That's probably because I am a long way from having been a professional developer. Umm, well, 3-4 years but there are giant gaps between developer gigs (e.g., 15 years before, then 10 years before that, etc.) -Original Message- From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 15:42 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652 Am 09/28/2011 11:56 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: Marcus, I share your thinking about this. If you or Oliver or someone can put a recent successful trial build where I can get my hands on the installer version, I will be happy to perform platform-confirmation installs. This would help me set up a routine for doing that kind of QA in the future. (For different internationalization variations, I can't do that alone and there needs to be help from the NL community.) I'm not a developer nor have I tried to build OOo from source for myself. (yes, I know, shame on me. ;-( ) However, I can offer some help to get some basic tests done for Win2000. A running version in a VM should be enough. MY THINKING I agree a smoke test against Windows 2000 and even Windows 98 would be good. It would be useful if the colleague here who still has a Windows 95 installation could confirm some things too. I remember that some code parts were deleted for supporting Win95/98/ME in the past. So, I'm pretty sure that it will not work on these Win versions. So, please correct me if I'm wrong but when we speak about supporting older versions than WinXP it's only Win2000 we speak about. Marcus If there is a dependency on a newer API entry, that typically shows up at load time or shortly thereafter. I suspect Unicode retrofitting will be the deal breaker, but it is useful to find out and to let users know. The other prospect is if there is dependency on a JVM or even VC++ RTL that is not supported that far back. If an artificial cut-off can be avoided, that is a good thing. It is necessary to do some sort of minimal testing to see if the current install works or not, and if it doesn't, what users who try it should expect. I am happy to test for that. It is within my competence and, I believe, the capabilities of the Windows 7 Virtual PC. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:04 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652 Am 09/28/2011 01:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I don't think the vendor support lifetime for a consumer OS has bring the end of application support on that OS. What is known is that there will be further service packs, maybe not even OS security patches, but it isn't as if they decay and die. Many machines run much longer than the support life of the OS, and upgrades may not be feasible. +1 I don't see a direct need to drop any OS support only because it is to old or it seems to be. To point to Microsoft and tell the users they don't support it anymore, so we drop the support too isn't a good argument. When we leave the baseline at Windows 2000 (or whereever it is at the moment) and tell the user we can give a guarantee (don't take this word to seriously ;-) ) for WinXP and newer, it should be OK. Then there is still a possibility to get it installed and started on Win2000. The nice thing is a user of Windows 98 or 2000 can still download old versions of OOo and run them. And they can do that for free. And they always will be able to do this. The question is not whether we retroactively support for older versions of Windows. They question is whether we maintain that support going forward, in new releases of the product. Yes, and as long as there are no real technical problems I don't see a need to drop the support. If there *is already* or *will be* a technical limitation (e.g., API things or system integration) that is a hurdle for going on in supporting newer Win versions, then we have a good reason to drop the support for older versions. Otherwise IMHO not. Marcus Outgrowing the size of machine that an older OS runs on (and might be limited to) is a different matter, as is relying on API functions that are not supported that far back. I don't have an opinion about the Win2k versus Windows XP SP2+ choice for OOo. I am just curious to
RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
FWIW; --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: ... If you mean ODMA.h, I don't believe there is any dependency on it and you should just get rid of it. If you need to deal with it as third-party code, I can get you a version with a BSD-variant license that applies, although the header itself has not been touched. AIIM approved the license some time ago. I think the simple solution is to remove the ODMA.h header and delete the dialog about offering ODMA selections on Open ... first or not (if that is even present in current OpenOffice.org builds). Post the patch on removing ODMA.h and I'll be happy to commit it [;). odma.h is only used here: ucb/source/ucp/odma/odma_lib.hxx odma.h by itself doesn't have any license information but it has the copyright: /* odma.h - Definitions, prototypes, etc. for Open Document Managment API (ODMA) version 2.0. COPYRIGHT (C) 1994, 1995 AIIM International All Right Reserved */ The surrounding code, however, is all LGPL by Oracle. I checked the Hg log (I told you it might useful!) and the initial revision is copyrighted by SUN so I guess we will get it through the SGA. I think we should just leave it as is for now. Pedro. - Dennis DETAILS In fact, ODMA.h is not a file anyone would use to bind to the ODMA32.dll, because then ODMA32.dll is required to be on the system. The whole idea is that ODMA32.dll and the present of a DMS that is registered to work with OpenOffice.org is done by discovery, and these are the wrong headers and the wrong protocol for that. If someone wants to figure out a decent binding for ODMA32 (there is no ODMA64 at this time) in the future, I can help with that. I even have better headers and sample code for going through the discovery process. I can even Apache License those [;). (Duhh. I just realized that.) However, I suspect that any further efforts at DMS and Content Management systems would be by tightening the WebDAV integration and also looking into CMIS as the most promising low-hanging fruit for content-management integration. -Original Message- From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 06:05 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license Hi, I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up regarding non-Apache license conform stuff. Looking at the wiki - http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration - provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start. I will create patches for the following Apache license problems: - UnixODBC - dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx - A header from GNU c library - ODMA Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked as solved issues? Best regards, Oliver.
BZ css testing
Is there a way i can test de OOo CSS skin on the apache implementation? I had been tweaking to the current theme of the site. Also would be doing some custom imaging.
Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
--- On Wed, 9/28/11, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: ... On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any kind are copyrightable subject matter. I'd imagine that Pixar, for instance, would have a problem with that blanket statement... The very existence of this paragraph in the Bison manual : http://www.gnu.org/s/bison/manual/bison.html#Conditions also raise doubt as the the validity of the premise. Ugh... I am not a lawyer and I normally prefer not to be have to read all that but OOo requires bison to build, so if that paragraph still applies we should be using yacc instead. Pedro.
RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
Right, So Odma.h cannot be in the grant, of course. The #include in odma_lib.hxx is only used for the type definitions, since the entry points need to be something that can be bound to pointers in a LoadLib of odma32.dll, and odma_lib.hxx does that. The usage is perfectly fine, even with Odma.h having a BSD-license variant. (I wonder if it shows up in the THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.html though.) Now the question is whether the library or the little executable is actually built and used in a distribution. If it is, I'll be happy to provide an odma.h with an explicit license statement. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Pedro F. Giffuni [mailto:giffu...@tutopia.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 18:02 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license FWIW; --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: ... If you mean ODMA.h, I don't believe there is any dependency on it and you should just get rid of it. If you need to deal with it as third-party code, I can get you a version with a BSD-variant license that applies, although the header itself has not been touched. AIIM approved the license some time ago. I think the simple solution is to remove the ODMA.h header and delete the dialog about offering ODMA selections on Open ... first or not (if that is even present in current OpenOffice.org builds). Post the patch on removing ODMA.h and I'll be happy to commit it [;). odma.h is only used here: ucb/source/ucp/odma/odma_lib.hxx odma.h by itself doesn't have any license information but it has the copyright: /* odma.h - Definitions, prototypes, etc. for Open Document Managment API (ODMA) version 2.0. COPYRIGHT (C) 1994, 1995 AIIM International All Right Reserved */ The surrounding code, however, is all LGPL by Oracle. I checked the Hg log (I told you it might useful!) and the initial revision is copyrighted by SUN so I guess we will get it through the SGA. I think we should just leave it as is for now. Pedro. - Dennis DETAILS In fact, ODMA.h is not a file anyone would use to bind to the ODMA32.dll, because then ODMA32.dll is required to be on the system. The whole idea is that ODMA32.dll and the present of a DMS that is registered to work with OpenOffice.org is done by discovery, and these are the wrong headers and the wrong protocol for that. If someone wants to figure out a decent binding for ODMA32 (there is no ODMA64 at this time) in the future, I can help with that. I even have better headers and sample code for going through the discovery process. I can even Apache License those [;). (Duhh. I just realized that.) However, I suspect that any further efforts at DMS and Content Management systems would be by tightening the WebDAV integration and also looking into CMIS as the most promising low-hanging fruit for content-management integration. -Original Message- From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 06:05 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license Hi, I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up regarding non-Apache license conform stuff. Looking at the wiki - http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration - provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start. I will create patches for the following Apache license problems: - UnixODBC - dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx - A header from GNU c library - ODMA Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked as solved issues? Best regards, Oliver.
Re: BZ css testing
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.comwrote: Alejandro; --- On Wed, 9/28/11, Alexandro Colorado wrote: Is there a way i can test de OOo CSS skin on the apache implementation? I had been tweaking to the current theme of the site. Also would be doing some custom imaging. That's very cool, thanks! Please open a jira issue with infra if there isn't one already. I know you probably thought of it but I guess you could also setup your personal bugzilla to test with in a linux/bsd box. Pedro. Ok I create INFRA-3970, feel free to add yourself to it. I would need to verify the version of the OOo's BZ vs the one in Apache (which I think is the latest). -- Anyone knows? -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: BZ css testing
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:47:10 -0500, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote: . Ok I create INFRA-3970, feel free to add yourself to it. I would need to verify the version of the OOo's BZ vs the one in Apache (which I think is the latest). -- Anyone knows? 4.0 (or so it says in the upper right corner :) ) Cheers, Pedro.
Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I'll stand by my original statement. I'm not going to get into the Pixar case since it doesn't apply here. I did not say it applied to the Visual studio generated cruft... I merely commented on the blanket assertion that 'computer generated = no copyright' The Bison manual may have license conditions on what can be done with the generated artifact, but I suggest that is not about copyrightable subject matter in the artifact. Actually it is. The only claim they could legally have _is_ on the generated bit that are substantial piece of code copied from template they provide, namely in the case of a bison generated parser the whole parser skeleton needed to exploit the generated state-graph. the whole paragraph is about the copyright disposition of these bits. and in the case of bison they explicitly grant you a license to use these bits in the 'normal' use case... my point being that the existence of that paragraph also disprove the assertion that 'computer generated = no copyright' You could write a program that print itself... the mere fact that it print itself does not mean you lose the copyright on your program... That being said, I do think you are on the clear with the Visual Studio generated cruft... but not merely because there is 'computer generation' involved. Norbert
