You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by ro...@us.ibm.com on 2011/06/03 20:03:06 UTC
Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new
options coming up. So I'd like to record the state of the issue. If
there is consensus on this formulation, I'll place it in the wiki. Of
course, if the discussion advances the issue or positions move, I can
always go back and revise,
-Rob
=Collabration with LibreOffice=
LibreOffice uses a dual licesne LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to
which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we
would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate
with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects.
This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events,
interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management
infrastructure, etc. And if TDF decides at a later point to change to a
compatible license, then this would open up additional ways in which we
could collaborate, and we would welcome that as well. We believe that in
practice, the extent to which we may actually collaborate will be
determined by the licence compatibility issue rather than any
unwillingness to collaborate.
-------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:50 PM, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:33:21 PM:
>
> >
> > Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for
> collaboration
> > to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim
> while
> > your project sorts itself out.
> >
>
>
> Can you state this in the form of a collaborative activity? I'm being
> neutral as to the intent or particulars on the wiki. I'm noting the kinds
> of activities. In the end the nature of the activity, with respect to the
> license and ASF policy, not the intent of the collaboration, is what will
> determine whether it is permissible.
>
> For example, mixing GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 with the intent of feeding
> starving children is not permissible, but providing a library that Wall
> Street tycoons can use to design butterscotch pudding swimming pools is
> permissible. Saying "collaboration...to protect the OpenOffice consumer"
> is not really sufficient.
>
>
I made fairly detailed proposals on another thread which I was summarising
with that phrase.
S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:33:21 PM:
>
> Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for
collaboration
> to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim
while
> your project sorts itself out.
>
Can you state this in the form of a collaborative activity? I'm being
neutral as to the intent or particulars on the wiki. I'm noting the kinds
of activities. In the end the nature of the activity, with respect to the
license and ASF policy, not the intent of the collaboration, is what will
determine whether it is permissible.
For example, mixing GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 with the intent of feeding
starving children is not permissible, but providing a library that Wall
Street tycoons can use to design butterscotch pudding swimming pools is
permissible. Saying "collaboration...to protect the OpenOffice consumer"
is not really sufficient.
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for collaboration
to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim while
your project sorts itself out.
S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
> >> from ASF into their products.
> >>
> >
> > This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
>
> ABSOLUTELY.
>
> Q: "How does the TDF work with the ASF?"
> A: "Snarf our code at will."
>
:-)
Actually I am pretty sure there will be upstream code from TDF. Maybe not
everything, but they are good people with a heart for OpenOffice.
S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with
TDF/LO
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 06/03/2011 12:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50,<ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Greg Stein<gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
>>
>>> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
>>> from ASF into their products.
>>>
>> This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
> ABSOLUTELY.
>
> Q: "How does the TDF work with the ASF?"
> A: "Snarf our code at will."
Although, IF the two code bases continue to diverge, it would probably
get prohibitively difficult to "lift code" in many cases.
-- Leif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
>
> And if we split the page into separate proposals (not unlikely given the
> clear differences of vision expressed on the list already), which one is
> voted on? All of them?
Rob,
Splitting the page would be an extreme situation, and it would
indicate, to me, that the incubator PMC is faced with multiple
competing groups of people proposing multiple incompatible visions for
a podling.
I'm not sure it's ever happened. My organization instinct is to write
that, in this case, the IPMC would vote on ALL of them, and possibly
end up approving more than one.
Now, before anyone tees off on that, I realize that this would be an
absurd situation.
The ASF members in the room here, I think, can all agree that it is
our goal to help you all avoid reaching this pass. On some other
thread specific to the particular point of controversy, I for one am
happy to try to keep pouring oil on the troubled waves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
sa3ruby@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 05:17:46 PM:
>
> Rules? :-)
>
> From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :
>
> "The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
> proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
> the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list."
>
> As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be
> no interference. If it turns out that there are groups with multiple
> visions, we can split this page into separate proposals. Defacement
> of the proposal will be quickly reverted.
>
And if we split the page into separate proposals (not unlikely given the
clear differences of vision expressed on the list already), which one is
voted on? All of them?
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> There are two common patterns at the ASF: RTC and CTR, which are
>> Review The Commit and Commit Then Review. Most places operate with a
>> CTR policy.
>
> I don't know how common it is in general, but the Apache community I'm most familiar with does both. CTR on the trunk, and RTC on the release branches. So far it has worked really well.
The closest we can come to a "release branch" on the wiki would be to
split off a locked page. Hopefully, people will play nice and that
won't be necessary here.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>
> There are two common patterns at the ASF: RTC and CTR, which are
> Review The Commit and Commit Then Review. Most places operate with a
> CTR policy.
>
I don't know how common it is in general, but the Apache community I'm most familiar with does both. CTR on the trunk, and RTC on the release branches. So far it has worked really well.
-- Leif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh <da...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
>> >> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
>> >> > and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
>> >> > the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you think?
>> >>
>> >> The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it!
>> >
>> > What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be
>> very
>> > reticent indeed about editing.
>>
>> Rules? :-)
>>
>> From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :
>>
>> "The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
>> proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
>> the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list."
>>
>
> Got any special rules for where the incoming community is already divided?
> :-)
There are two common patterns at the ASF: RTC and CTR, which are
Review The Commit and Commit Then Review. Most places operate with a
CTR policy.
If it turns out that there are controversial topics that need to be
ironed out on list, then I encourage people to voluntarily follow a
Review Then Commit policy, i.e., discuss proposed modifications here,
attempt to build consensus and then proceed based on that consensus.
Non-controversial changes can continue with as CTR.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Discussion should appear here, rather than on the wiki. Leaving quick
questions and thoughts is fine, but for actual discussion: here.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:11, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more. If we get into a Wikipedia edit-reversion war, I am sure that there are wiser heads who will intervene. (It is unfortunate that this wiki doesn't come with "Discuss" pages, but that doesn't mean we can't introduce one or more as our own convention.)
>
> My suggestion is to take small steps.
>
> For bigger steps, it is probably a good idea to make new pages and have focused discussion on those pages until there is some apparent consensus on merging back into the main proposal text.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Phipps [mailto:simon@webmink.com]
> < http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cBANLkTimkDxoCe12t-xggQ5LS+nMkLUOJLA@mail.gmail.com%3e>
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 14:21
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
>
> [ ... ]
>
> So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to edit and not just Apache members or the project's proposers.
>
> S.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more. If we get into a Wikipedia edit-reversion war, I am sure that there are wiser heads who will intervene. (It is unfortunate that this wiki doesn't come with "Discuss" pages, but that doesn't mean we can't introduce one or more as our own convention.)
My suggestion is to take small steps.
For bigger steps, it is probably a good idea to make new pages and have focused discussion on those pages until there is some apparent consensus on merging back into the main proposal text.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:simon@webmink.com]
< http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cBANLkTimkDxoCe12t-xggQ5LS+nMkLUOJLA@mail.gmail.com%3e>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 14:21
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
[ ... ]
So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to edit and not just Apache members or the project's proposers.
S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Please do not turn this thread into *ANOTHER* however polite argument
the possible construction of the community.
>
> So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to
> edit and not just Apache members or the project's proposers.
>
Yes: As Sam wrote:
. Defacement
>> of the proposal will be quickly reverted.
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh <da...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
> >> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
> >> > and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
> >> > the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think?
> >>
> >> The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it!
> >
> > What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be
> very
> > reticent indeed about editing.
>
> Rules? :-)
>
> From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :
>
> "The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
> proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
> the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list."
>
Got any special rules for where the incoming community is already divided?
:-)
> As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be
> no interference. If it turns out that there are groups with multiple
> visions, we can split this page into separate proposals. Defacement
> of the proposal will be quickly reverted.
>
So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to
edit and not just Apache members or the project's proposers.
S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I started the process by adding a couple of TBD's.
My little vision is that IPMC members might add notes of the form:
"I cannot vote +1 for this proposal until this section addresses issue X'"
When all those comments are gone, we have, in effect, voted.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
>>> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
>>> > and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
>>> > the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
>>> >
>>> > What do you think?
>>>
>>> The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it!
>>
>> What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be very
>> reticent indeed about editing.
>
> Rules? :-)
>
> From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :
>
> "The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
> proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
> the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list."
>
> As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be
> no interference. If it turns out that there are groups with multiple
> visions, we can split this page into separate proposals. Defacement
> of the proposal will be quickly reverted.
>
>> S.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
>> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
>> > and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
>> > the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>>
>> The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it!
>
> What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be very
> reticent indeed about editing.
Rules? :-)
>From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :
"The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list."
As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be
no interference. If it turns out that there are groups with multiple
visions, we can split this page into separate proposals. Defacement
of the proposal will be quickly reverted.
> S.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
> > and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
> > the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it!
>
What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be very
reticent indeed about editing.
S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
> add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
> and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
> the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
>
> What do you think?
The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it!
> Cheers
> Daniel
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 04:11:43 PM:
>
> Rob,
>
> I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do
> you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and
> diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not
> shut the door in the very beginning and thus omit collaboration with
> other parties. Tho, whether those parties accept the invitation or not
> can't probably assured by the proposal BUT at least you tried your
> very best.
>
Daniel, please be concrete and critical, not accusatory. Please critique
the proposal, not the person. I attach the latest version of this section
of the proposal. I am unable to find the part of the proposal you refer
to when you say it "shuts the door in the very beginning". Can you please
point that out?
You also use the word "invitation". This is not an invitation. This is a
section of the incubation proposal. The audience is the IPMC to inform
their vote on the proposal. I think we owe them our candor and our honest
appraisal, not a press release. I'm not opposed to the *project* doing a
formal invitation to TDF/LO, and in fact I'd welcome that. An invitation
would obviously take on a different form. But I don't think this proposal
is the right vehicle for doing that.
As always, I welcome improvements to this proposal.
Regards,
-Rob
=Collabration with LibreOffice=
LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to
which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we
would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate
with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects.
This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events,
interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management
infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of build schedules,
version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream requirements.
Additionally, collaboration could include LibreOffice use of project
deliverables per the Apache 2.0 license and their reporting of defects.
If TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then
this would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we
would welcome that as well. We believe that, in practice, the degree to
which we are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the
licence compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to
collaborate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by dsh <da...@googlemail.com>.
Rob,
I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do
you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and
diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not
shut the door in the very beginning and thus omit collaboration with
other parties. Tho, whether those parties accept the invitation or not
can't probably assured by the proposal BUT at least you tried your
very best.
Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
What do you think?
Cheers
Daniel
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>...
>> This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>
> This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
> consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
>
> Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
> name of "purity" (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
> The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
> would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
> try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
> want to see here.
>
>>...
>>> Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
>>> our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
>>> can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified
>>> code into LO.
>>>
>>> If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.
>>
>> That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having
>> user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would
>> especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that
>> should be noted.
>>
>> There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the
>> details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating
>> version numbers, etc. I can add that.
>>
>>> > I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take
>> source
>>> > code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish.
>> I'm
>>> > not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking
>> that
>>> > the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
>>> > collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent
>> in
>>> > the license.
>>>
>>> Calling TDF/LO "one of many who can take our source" is disingenuous.
>>> They are VERY definitely NOT just "one of the crowd".
>>>
>>
>> I see this distinction:
>>
>> -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice
>>
>> versus
>>
>> -- An extraordinary collaboration
>>
>>
>> I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former.
>
> "Could be"? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that
> the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be.
>
> I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this
> email now. Come back later.
>
> -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 06:19:06AM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> Jagielski says what is "typical" for Apache is "building (or even
> "_re-building_") communities around those codebases."
Which is true. It does not say that TDF is not able to.
> ...
> He says that makes Apache the perfect place to "help '_repair_' the
> community" around OpenOffice.org
The community is fractured, is it not? So our history of
community created code *is* a perfect place to *help*
repair it. Notice the word "help". It implies cooperation
with others who also help repair it.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 19:42)
> I must have significantly misinterpreted the below:
>
> "However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
> for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said. "They are
> sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that
> attempting to negotiate over changing any core aspect of it (such as
> the non-copy-left stance) is unlikely to be fruitful work. So - only
> time will tell."
Yes you did, Pls read my mail from 0:35 UTC last night in this thread.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33)
>> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, got that wrong I see now
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
>>>
>>> Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your
>>> statement about not talking to the press.
>>>
>>
>> Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical
>> of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's "ideological" stance will
>> be a factor in breaking any cooperation.
>
> I did not say that. But it was said of the interview with Meeks, which we found out not to be true either.
>
I must have significantly misinterpreted the below:
"However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said. "They are sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that attempting to negotiate over changing any core aspect of it (such as the non-copy-left stance) is unlikely to be fruitful work. So - only time will tell."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33)
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, got that wrong I see now
>> http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
>>
>> Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your
>> statement about not talking to the press.
>>
>
> Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical
> of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's "ideological" stance will
> be a factor in breaking any cooperation.
I did not say that. But it was said of the interview with Meeks, which
we found out not to be true either.
> That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing
> the good and the potential of this effort. Whereas there appears
> a concerted effort by others to derail it and portray the ASF as
> the pawns of IBM/Oracle or as agents of anti-FOSS/anti-LOo actions.
If that is the feeling you get, there is something wrong.
I do not see any sense in criticizing the ASF, just because they have a
different view. Seems you get hit by pieces flying around that belong in
the IBM - TDF dispute ;-) Sorry about that, maybe a bit more precise
wording (from me and others) here and there would help, but I'm not sure
if it would fully prevent that happening.
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 4 June 2011 11:33, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, got that wrong I see now
> >
> http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
> >
> > Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your
> > statement about not talking to the press.
> >
>
> Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical
> of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's "ideological" stance will
> be a factor in breaking any cooperation.
>
> That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing
> the good and the potential of this effort. Whereas there appears
> a concerted effort by others to derail it and portray the ASF as
> the pawns of IBM/Oracle or as agents of anti-FOSS/anti-LOo actions.
>
I think this is a little extreme :-) I don't see much positive efforts at
derailing, just people trying to work out what it all means in terms of
their own perspective, value systems and their ownership of their work. I
think the discussions are surprisingly cordial given the circumstances. EQ
is going to be just as important as IQ in resolving all this.
> --
> ===========================================================================
> Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
> "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
> --
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can see why some might read into those statements implications that
> probably were not intended. That is the problem with perspectives :-)
I used these quote to illustrate that and to put that in parallel with
the complaint about Michael Meeks being quoted by a journalist in
terms deemed not pleasant toward Apache.
Given any article out there and given any personal preference, one can
always find something to be offended about if one squint hard enough
:-)
It's a one of these many things that cut both ways...
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 4 June 2011 12:19, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmm, got that wrong I see now
> >>
> http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
> >>
> >> Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your
> >> statement about not talking to the press.
> >>
> >
> > Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical
> > of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's "ideological" stance will
> > be a factor in breaking any cooperation.
> >
> > That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing
> > the good and the potential of this effort.
>
> like:
>
> Jagielski says what is "typical" for Apache is "building (or even
> "_re-building_") communities around those codebases."
> ...
> He says that makes Apache the perfect place to "help '_repair_' the
> community" around OpenOffice.org
> ...
> Weir also encourages the idea of doing core OO.org development in
> Apache and then having additional work done by _derivatives_.
> ...
> ?
I can see why some might read into those statements implications that
probably were not intended. That is the problem with perspectives :-)
Is this saying TDF is responsible for breaking the OOo community? - I don't
think so but some might read it as that. We all know the age old problem of
communication by mailing list or news article.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, got that wrong I see now
>> http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
>>
>> Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your
>> statement about not talking to the press.
>>
>
> Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical
> of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's "ideological" stance will
> be a factor in breaking any cooperation.
>
> That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing
> the good and the potential of this effort.
like:
Jagielski says what is "typical" for Apache is "building (or even
"_re-building_") communities around those codebases."
...
He says that makes Apache the perfect place to "help '_repair_' the
community" around OpenOffice.org
...
Weir also encourages the idea of doing core OO.org development in
Apache and then having additional work done by _derivatives_.
...
?
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
>
> Hmm, got that wrong I see now
> http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
>
> Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your
> statement about not talking to the press.
>
Tell me where in that post anyone from the ASF is openly critical
of TDF or strongly implies that TDF's "ideological" stance will
be a factor in breaking any cooperation.
That is the difference. Outwardly and publicly the ASF is stressing
the good and the potential of this effort. Whereas there appears
a concerted effort by others to derail it and portray the ASF as
the pawns of IBM/Oracle or as agents of anti-FOSS/anti-LOo actions.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:50:43PM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Hi Jim, all,
>
> I do not understand why that should be a shame.
> All I read is explanation of the situation, among which implicitly
> an important difference: the copy-left versus non copy-left. That is
> a personal style, choice that is one of the reasons d'?tre of
> LibreOffice.
> Indeed a line in the sand. But putting ones head in the sand, by not
> acknowledging it, would make little sense IMO.
>
If really curious about why I thought it a shame, please let me
know and I'd be happy to explain...
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> To put an end to speculation on the "TDF is a bunch of extremists
> therefore Oracle did not choose them", here's TDF's official statement:
>
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-
to-oracle/
I already pulled from that site, and quoted the relevant part. No one said
that TDF "is a bunch of extremists." TDF is entitled to its license of
choice, but we cannot ignore that those choices have impact.
We have seen collaboration proposed within the constraints of that license
choice, and some people have also suggested that *IF* TDF were to change
that license choice (and *IF* it *can*), how that might impact beneficially.
I'm not sure if I've actually seen a single negative thing said about TDF.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by "Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>.
Hello everyone,
2011/6/7 Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>
> Noel J. Bergman wrote (07-06-11 02:03)
>
> Michael Meeks:
>
> "I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for
>>>> the OO.o project in the long run."
>>>>
>>>
> You:
>
> I agree; you draw the same inference that I do: he means that a
>> non-copyleft license is the reason for (predicted eventual) failure.
>>
>
> Is 'Not likely to be a good home' the same as 'failure' ? Sure not in this
> case. It just means that the Apache solution does not cater for an important
> part of the community.
>
>
> That attitude is most likely why (IMO) the "obvious" candidate wasn't
>> used when Oracle decided to transfer OpenOffice.
>>
>
> Even more speculations, LOL
> And OT (interesting how this whole subject drives me/you/others this
> route).
>
>
>
To put an end to speculation on the "TDF is a bunch of extremists therefore
Oracle did not choose them", here's TDF's official statement:
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/
Hope this will answer many questions.
Best,
Charles.
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote (07-06-11 02:03)
Michael Meeks:
>>> "I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for
>>> the OO.o project in the long run."
You:
> I agree; you draw the same inference that I do: he means that a
> non-copyleft license is the reason for (predicted eventual) failure.
Is 'Not likely to be a good home' the same as 'failure' ? Sure not in
this case. It just means that the Apache solution does not cater for an
important part of the community.
> That attitude is most likely why (IMO) the "obvious" candidate wasn't
> used when Oracle decided to transfer OpenOffice.
Even more speculations, LOL
And OT (interesting how this whole subject drives me/you/others this route).
> Licensing matters. IBM and others prefer an Open Source license,
> which allows a level playing field, rather than the inequity of
> GPL+proprietary, but they are not interested sharing everything.
A know discussion indeed.
Cheers,
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Cor Nouws wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51)
>> Conclusion:
>>
>> "I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the
>> OO.o project in the long run."
>>
>> Supporting statements:
>> [...]
>
> Supporting explanation ;-)
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE97E04.20202@nouenoff.nl%3E
So, "For me it is obvious that this statement is because there is strong involvement in LibreOffice from people that do not want to work with non-copyleft and Apache licence."
I agree; you draw the same inference that I do: he means that a non-copyleft license is the reason for (predicted eventual) failure. That attitude is most likely why (IMO) the "obvious" candidate wasn't used when Oracle decided to transfer OpenOffice.
Licensing matters. IBM and others prefer an Open Source license, which allows a level playing field, rather than the inequity of GPL+proprietary, but they are not interested sharing everything.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Cor Nouws wrote (07-06-11 00:31)
> Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51)
>> Conclusion:
>>
>> "I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the
>> OO.o project in the long run."
>>
>> Supporting statements:
>> [...]
>
> Supporting explanation ;-)
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
Or better this link
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE97E04.20202@nouenoff.nl%3E
(apologies)
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51)
> Conclusion:
>
> "I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run."
>
> Supporting statements:
> [...]
Supporting explanation ;-)
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Michael,
Conclusion:
"I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run."
Supporting statements:
"They are sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that attempting to negotiate over changing any core aspect of it (such as the non-copy-left stance) is unlikely to be fruitful work."
"The ASF has a very well designed governance, and a very experienced team, and some excellent licensing for specific situations."
"I believe that the Apache licensing and policies are for the most part extremely mature, very applicable and effective in certain projects, and fundamentally non-negotiable."
I fail to see how you draw the conclusion from the supporting arguments. One can infer from your supporting statements that you see licensing as the issue. But you've failed to draw the connection between the license and your conclusion. As an Epistemologist, I'm kind of interested in such nits.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@novell.com>.
Hi Jim,
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 16:14 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
> as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive
> stance.
Hey ho; I see my name being taken intravenously ;-) so the longer quote
from a private mail from which this was excerpted that I sent to Sean
(who I think summarised it fairly) was:
The ASF has a very well designed governance, and a very
experienced team, and some excellent licensing for specific
situations, and I love their open-ness and robust discussion
which is refreshing to see wrt. OO.o. <quote> "However, I do not
believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o
project in the long run. They are sufficiently confident and
comfortable with their model that attempting to negotiate over
changing any core aspect of it (such as the non-copy-left
stance) is unlikely to be fruitful work. So - only time will
tell. </quote>
There is only so much sweetness and light I can prefix to honey my
basic conviction expressed as an individual :-) Hopefully one that you
heard from me directly first. Furthermore, I believe that the Apache
licensing and policies are for the most part extremely mature, very
applicable and effective in certain projects, and fundamentally
non-negotiable. These are the 'core aspects' I'm trying to get at as
pointless to discuss changing.
Reading the threads here, I hardly think that is controversial, but
perhaps I missed something - I certainly don't want to shame anyone.
Furthermore, if journalists come and ask questions, and others are
speaking to the media - I don't see any substantial ethical problem with
doing so too.
Apologies if it came across badly,
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
What seems clear is that at least to start with we will have an apache
licensed product and a copy left product. Why not just accept this as
healthy diversity?
On 4 Jun 2011 00:42, "Cor Nouws" <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 23:48)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>> I do not understand why that should be a shame.
>
>
> The article portrays Michael as a spokesper...
I would not understand the interview as denigrating your work here.
(But that could be my culture, language. Not sure)
> is fine for individuals to have opinions, but when it starts to get
> portrayed at a community l...
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Founda...
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ge...
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 23:48)
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>> I do not understand why that should be a shame.
>
> The article portrays Michael as a spokesperson for the LibreOffice
> community. And then Michael proceeds to denigrate the effort here. It
I would not understand the interview as denigrating your work here.
(But that could be my culture, language. Not sure)
> is fine for individuals to have opinions, but when it starts to get
> portrayed at a community level... well. Not so nice.
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Cor Nouws wrote (04-06-11 01:49)
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
>
>> That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
>> press.
>
> It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the
> press about that (at this stage).
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statement
about not talking to the press.
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:56)
> rather than talk bad about
Still not get that 'bad' ;-)
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 20:36, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23)
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>...
>>> I don't see any smack in it. I read he is giving his opinion in a polite
>>> manner. (Have seen different quotes from him in the past ..). And also
>>> complimenting the ASF.
>>
>> "However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
>> for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said.
>
> OK, now I understand where your impression comes from. For me it is obvious
> that this statement is because there is strong involvement in LibreOffice
> from people that do not want to work with non-copyleft and Apache licence.
> So just another (though indeed rather implicit, explanation of a different
> view on things.)
Oh, I understand where he's coming. Michael and I have exchanged a
number of emails on the subject. I have zero problem with his
position, and even encouraged him to continue to speak out.
I do take some issue with moving it from mailing list discussion over
to the press. That just doesn't seem to be good for anybody (ASF and
TDF).
My mother always told me to just be quiet, rather than talk bad about
other people. I don't always do that right, but it is something to
strive for. Especially if you're talking to a reporter.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote on 06/03/2011 08:36:20 PM:
>
> (So seeing Robs questionnaire: it won't be easy to get ground for many
> positive replies. But of course it is good to try. I even might step in
> with some suggestions, that however always tend to fail, since my mind
> does not take large corporate policies into consideration ;-) )
>
And Cor, please, if you see some other possibilities that I'm not seeing,
feel free to augment the list of questions.
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23)
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
>>
>>> That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
>>> press.
>>
>> It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press
>> about that (at this stage).
>> Meeks is being interviewed about what's going on around libreOffice.
>>
>>> I don't see any press where ASF people talking smack about TDF/LO.
>>
>> I don't see any smack in it. I read he is giving his opinion in a polite
>> manner. (Have seen different quotes from him in the past ..). And also
>> complimenting the ASF.
>
> "However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
> for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said.
OK, now I understand where your impression comes from. For me it is
obvious that this statement is because there is strong involvement in
LibreOffice from people that do not want to work with non-copyleft and
Apache licence. So just another (though indeed rather implicit,
explanation of a different view on things.)
(So seeing Robs questionnaire: it won't be easy to get ground for many
positive replies. But of course it is good to try. I even might step in
with some suggestions, that however always tend to fail, since my mind
does not take large corporate policies into consideration ;-) )
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
In the long run we are all dead ;-) So let's concentrate on the short run to
start with.
On 4 Jun 2011 01:24, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:1...
"However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gener...
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
>
>> That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
>> press.
>
> It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press
> about that (at this stage).
> Meeks is being interviewed about what's going on around libreOffice.
>
>> I don't see any press where ASF people talking smack about TDF/LO.
>
> I don't see any smack in it. I read he is giving his opinion in a polite
> manner. (Have seen different quotes from him in the past ..). And also
> complimenting the ASF.
"However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
> That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
> press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the
press about that (at this stage).
Meeks is being interviewed about what's going on around libreOffice.
> I don't see any press where ASF people talking smack about TDF/LO.
I don't see any smack in it. I read he is giving his opinion in a polite
manner. (Have seen different quotes from him in the past ..). And also
complimenting the ASF.
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 17:57, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael is repeating some invariants that he and other LO/TDF people
> have stated, politely and consistently, since the inception of this
> discussion. They are committed to copyleft, they see dependencies with
> copyleft, their vision of OO is copyleft. There's perfect symmetry
> here: we're making public statements (well, general@incubator) to the
> effect that everything would be unicorns and rainbows if only they'd
> give up on copyleft and adopt the AL, and they're stating the perfect
> converse. We support our argument, they support theirs.
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press. I don't see any press where ASF people talking smack about
TDF/LO.
*shrug*
I think a week will allow us to move past a lot of this stuff and
become more constructive. Just gotta wait...
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Michael is repeating some invariants that he and other LO/TDF people
have stated, politely and consistently, since the inception of this
discussion. They are committed to copyleft, they see dependencies with
copyleft, their vision of OO is copyleft. There's perfect symmetry
here: we're making public statements (well, general@incubator) to the
effect that everything would be unicorns and rainbows if only they'd
give up on copyleft and adopt the AL, and they're stating the perfect
converse. We support our argument, they support theirs.
This is going to be a battle for the hearts and minds of the
developers (or, in some cases, their employers). It can't be
negotiated out of existence. Even of the likes of Michael and Florian
*wanted* to negotiate it out of existence, they can't speak for all
the contributors. They aren't even legally an entity, after all. It
can be a polite battle, or an ugly one, but it can't, in my opinion,
be defined out of existence.
If/when we launch the podling, we'll be starting an experiment. At the
end of that experiment, one, two, or zero open office projects will
have a critical mass of developers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
>...
> Jim Jagielski wrote (03-06-11 22:14)
>>
>> Posts such as:
>>
>>
>> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
>>
>> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
>> as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive
>> stance.
>>
>> It's a shame.
>
> I do not understand why that should be a shame.
The article portrays Michael as a spokesperson for the LibreOffice
community. And then Michael proceeds to denigrate the effort here. It
is fine for individuals to have opinions, but when it starts to get
portrayed at a community level... well. Not so nice.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>.
Hi Jim, all,
<short intro>
Long time OpenOffice.org contributor in various areas. Mainly
LibreOffice since Sept. 2010. One of the founders there.
Now looking at a Thinderbird folder with more than 300 mails, of which
I've only read a few up until now :-)
Living in The Netherlands, so If I skip in an hour or so, it is because
of the time zone ;-)
</short intro>
Jim Jagielski wrote (03-06-11 22:14)
> Posts such as:
>
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
>
> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
> as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive
> stance.
>
> It's a shame.
I do not understand why that should be a shame.
All I read is explanation of the situation, among which implicitly an
important difference: the copy-left versus non copy-left. That is a
personal style, choice that is one of the reasons d'être of LibreOffice.
Indeed a line in the sand. But putting ones head in the sand, by not
acknowledging it, would make little sense IMO.
Kind regards,
Cor
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 3 Jun 2011, at 21:14, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Posts such as:
>
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
>
> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
> as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive
> stance.
>
> It's a shame.
Looks like a journalist writing a story about LO's 3.4 releaser to me. They like to stir, you know :-)
S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Posts such as:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive
stance.
It's a shame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When
> you argue to *not* put them [TDF/LO] into the proposal, then I call that
> "exclusive" rather than "inclusive".
+1
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
>>> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
>>> available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
>>> statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and
>>> extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other
>>> situations.
>>
>> I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing.
>>
>
> Agreed, but that assumes that LO is "just" a build/deliverables/consumer
> focused entity, and doesn't have a developer interest as well. As long
> as they still do, then licensing is important.
That's not my intent. Rather, I have tried to capture in writing the things I think it's easy to agree about and leave unsaid the things it is certain will cause an argument. Indeed, I believe that's close to the definition of consensus.
But I do believe the developer intent of TDF to be profoundly different from the general developer ethos of ASF, so even in those contentious areas where ideology will come into play I am still optimistic there are ways to collaborate if we have the will to make it happen.
S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with
TDF/LO
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
> > statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and
> > extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other
> > situations.
>
> I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing.
>
Agreed, but that assumes that LO is "just" a build/deliverables/consumer
focused entity, and doesn't have a developer interest as well. As long
as they still do, then licensing is important.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Given the generally positive response I've edited that text into the wiki.
S.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> > I suggest:
> >
> > "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> > community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on
> the
> > GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
> > will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so
> that
> > the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
> > LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
> > received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
> > licensing choices.
> >
> > There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
> > sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
> > build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
> > build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
> > requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life
> of
> > the podlet."
> >
> > S.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
> GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
> will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that
> the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
> LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
> received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
> licensing choices.
>
> There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
> sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
> build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
> build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
> requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of
> the podlet."
>
> S.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 4 June 2011 13:37, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
>
> >
> > On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> > > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> > > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
> > > statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and
> > > extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other
> > > situations.
> >
> > I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the
> > consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to
> > the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely
> > unrelated to licensing.
> >
>
> I'll assert that there is a subset of participants on this list, taking
> part in this discussion and whom have added their names to the proposed
> committers list who feel strongly that the proposed project's efforts
> should include a strong end-user focus.
That is certainly true of myself and I suspect Manfred Reiter. We are both
interested in certification and marketing as we both have professional
backgrounds in vocational education and training. I was formerly education
lead for OOo and Manfred formerly co-lead for the German project. We are
currently collaborating in EU funded projects. I wrote an application for
funding that is being presented through the German National Agency for an
OpenOffice.org certification project - even if this application failed we
can do others and the focus has to be impact on end-users.
> I'm willing to believe that there
> is also a subset that thinks otherwise. If these difference can be
> resolved, that would be best. But if not, I'll suggest that this is a
> fundamental difference of vision which probably cannot be reconciled
> within a single proposal.
>
If for some organisational reason it is better for us to be in camp foo
rather than camp bar we have no problem. We just want to help people get
free and open source office productivity tools. We will work cooperatively
with anyone who has similar broad goals.
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
> > statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and
> > extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other
> > situations.
>
> I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the
> consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to
> the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely
> unrelated to licensing.
>
I'll assert that there is a subset of participants on this list, taking
part in this discussion and whom have added their names to the proposed
committers list who feel strongly that the proposed project's efforts
should include a strong end-user focus. I'm willing to believe that there
is also a subset that thinks otherwise. If these difference can be
resolved, that would be best. But if not, I'll suggest that this is a
fundamental difference of vision which probably cannot be reconciled
within a single proposal.
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
>> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
>> available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
>> statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and
>> extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other
>> situations.
>
> I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing.
Just to be clear: you disagree with enumerating other complements that
might apply in other situations?
> S.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>>
> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
> statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and
> extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other
> situations.
I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing.
S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>...
>> Simon,
>>
>> Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:
>>
>> "potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well
>> as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users"
>>
>> By one definition, "complementary" means non-overlapping, pieces that are
>
> I find the query to be pedantic. We are not formulating a
> multi-national standards agreement here. Words are just words, and
> this is just a proposal to the Incubator PMC. Throw them on "paper"
> and move along.
It is important that we form a common understanding on what we are
voting on. I don't want some participants to be voting on a proposal
with one understanding that there will be no overlap and subsequently
to be surprised when their understanding does not match what actually
is done.
> Simon's statement seemed pretty clear: LibreOffice complements
> anything that we do here at Apache. There is no need for additional
> constraint or precision. It gets across the basic concept.
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and
extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other
situations.
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
> -- Mr Clinton
Cute quote, but the license question still remains.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>...
> Simon,
>
> Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:
>
> "potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well
> as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users"
>
> By one definition, "complementary" means non-overlapping, pieces that are
I find the query to be pedantic. We are not formulating a
multi-national standards agreement here. Words are just words, and
this is just a proposal to the Incubator PMC. Throw them on "paper"
and move along.
Simon's statement seemed pretty clear: LibreOffice complements
anything that we do here at Apache. There is no need for additional
constraint or precision. It gets across the basic concept.
Cheers,
-g
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
-- Mr Clinton
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 06:16:22 PM:
>
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on
the
> GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
> will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so
that
> the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
> LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
> received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
> licensing choices.
>
> There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including
jointly
> sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
> build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
> build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
> requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the
life of
> the podlet."
>
Simon,
Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:
"potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well
as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users"
By one definition, "complementary" means non-overlapping, pieces that are
incomplete separately, but sum to 100%. By that definition the statement
could be read as saying that LO would focus on Linux, Windows and Mac
consumer end-users, and Apache would not.
Would you agree that majority of users of this code base on Windows and
Mac are using OpenOffice.org today, not LibreOffice? I'd grant you that
the opposite is likely true for Linux.
So by that definition of complementary, the statement in the wiki is not
really true.
Assuming that is not what you intended to say, I hope it is not
controversial to fix this in the wiki as:
"The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
community, with an established focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as
on Windows and Mac consumer end-users."
(the waffling with "potentially" doesn't seem to do anything in the
sentence)
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Something about the licenses to be reconciled is useful to have somewhere so folks can understand what the big deal is. Maybe in a location for backup details?
For example, contributors to the current LibreOffice code are asked to assert LGPL3/MPL. The extensive effort and roadmap for user documentation is leading to documents that are GPL3/CC-by dual-licensed.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:simon@webmink.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 15:16
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
I suggest:
"The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual licensing choices.
There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of the podlet."
S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with
TDF/LO
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Simon,
As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about this suggested path. In the end the people
who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating or not...But, here's my +1 that implies that i'd like folks who are
signing on to this podling do their best to make this happen.
-- dims
On 06/03/2011 06:26 PM, dsh wrote:
> +1 (I like the positive tone that tries to omit words having a
> negative connotation)
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> I suggest:
>>
>> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
>> community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
>> GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
>> will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that
>> the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
>> LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
>> received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
>> licensing choices.
>>
>> There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
>> sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
>> build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
>> build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
>> requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of
>> the podlet."
>>
>> S.
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by dsh <da...@googlemail.com>.
+1 (I like the positive tone that tries to omit words having a
negative connotation)
Cheers
Daniel
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
> GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
> will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that
> the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
> LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
> received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
> licensing choices.
>
> There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
> sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
> build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
> build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
> requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of
> the podlet."
>
> S.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
I suggest:
"The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that
the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
licensing choices.
There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of
the podlet."
S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 23:01, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> If
> TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this
> would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would
> welcome that as well.
It's not necessary to suggest TDF changes it's chosen licence. It's true that if they did new possibilities would be opened but why should we expect them to do so. Some will find the suggestion insulting others will be happy to contribute their code to shared code under the Apache License 2.0 where it can be reused in LibreOffice, there is no new for a wholesale change of philosophy.
> We believe that, in practice, the degree to which we
> are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the licence
> compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to collaborate
Again, I don't think this is necessary, but if the first sentence (above) is removed I find it more reasonable. Personally I'd remove both.
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 05:42:14 PM:
>
> So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a
> teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this
> proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that "including them by
> reference [to the Apache License]" is a cop-out. Several times, you
> fallen back to "but they can just use the code like anybody else". But
> they're AREN'T ANYBODY ELSE.
>
But I'm not giving up on you, Greg, or this section of the proposal.
I am attaching this section of the proposal as it stands now.
Would you or anyone else like to contribute any improvements? Personal
attacks, please, to /dev/null.
Regards,
-Rob
LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to
which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we
would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate
with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects.
This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events,
interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management
infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of build schedules,
version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream requirements.
Additionally, collaboration could include LibreOffice use of project
deliverables per the Apache 2.0 license and their reporting of defects. If
TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this
would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would
welcome that as well. We believe that, in practice, the degree to which we
are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the licence
compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to collaborate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> >...
>>> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>>>
>>> This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
>>> consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
>>>
>>> Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
>>> name of "purity" (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
>>> The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
>>> would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
>>> try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
>>> want to see here.
>>
>> Greg, TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete
>> suggestions, fire away. But please do not accuse me of "excluding" them
>> from the proposal or "purity" or "division of community" or suggest that
>> I'm "pretending" anything. It seems to me that you are being very quick
>> to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from. Please be
>> civil and assume that I am being sincere. I will strive to do the same of
>> you.
>
> It is the pattern of query and response that I am objecting to.
>
> Consider the string of emails:
>
> R: The first email didn't mentioned anything about LO consuming our source.
> G: I said it should, as that is a very real possibility
> R: You said "is that really collaboration?"
> G: Of course it is, and here is why
> R: this is *our* proposal. not theirs. We don't need to talk about them.
> G: give up
>
> It is like pulling teeth to have you simply recognize that LO is a
> part of this proposal and the eventual community. It's like you don't
> even have that in your *mindset*, and that very much scares me. When
> you argue to *not* put them into the proposal, then I call that
> "exclusive" rather than "inclusive".
I may have failed at mentoring.
This could also be a bit of a telephone game where what I thought I
said and what ultimately resulted after passing through several
people's retelling is not recognizable to me.
My principles were to suggest that people focus on what they bring to
the table, and to and to actively seek out others and get THEM to
identify what they bring to the table.
Again, the end result clearly did not come out that way, and I will
see what I can do to rectify that.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >...
>> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>>
>> This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
>> consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
>>
>> Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
>> name of "purity" (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
>> The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
>> would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
>> try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
>> want to see here.
>>
>
> Greg, TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete
> suggestions, fire away. But please do not accuse me of "excluding" them
> from the proposal or "purity" or "division of community" or suggest that
> I'm "pretending" anything. It seems to me that you are being very quick
> to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from. Please be
> civil and assume that I am being sincere. I will strive to do the same of
> you.
It is the pattern of query and response that I am objecting to.
Consider the string of emails:
R: The first email didn't mentioned anything about LO consuming our source.
G: I said it should, as that is a very real possibility
R: You said "is that really collaboration?"
G: Of course it is, and here is why
R: this is *our* proposal. not theirs. We don't need to talk about them.
G: give up
It is like pulling teeth to have you simply recognize that LO is a
part of this proposal and the eventual community. It's like you don't
even have that in your *mindset*, and that very much scares me. When
you argue to *not* put them into the proposal, then I call that
"exclusive" rather than "inclusive".
And we should note that "collaboration" also means a tight
relationship between our development and theirs. That they will
consume our source, and we should incorporate that into our plans.
But at each point, there is some pedantic rationale around wording and
phrasing (ref: "An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice"
versus "An extraordinary collaboration").
So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a
teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this
proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that "including them by
reference [to the Apache License]" is a cop-out. Several times, you
fallen back to "but they can just use the code like anybody else". But
they're AREN'T ANYBODY ELSE.
bye.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >...
> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>
> This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
> consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
>
> Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
> name of "purity" (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
> The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
> would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
> try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
> want to see here.
>
Greg, TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete
suggestions, fire away. But please do not accuse me of "excluding" them
from the proposal or "purity" or "division of community" or suggest that
I'm "pretending" anything. It seems to me that you are being very quick
to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from. Please be
civil and assume that I am being sincere. I will strive to do the same of
you.
> >...
> >> Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
> >> our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
> >> can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our
modified
> >> code into LO.
> >>
> >> If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.
> >
> > That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of
having
> > user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would
> > especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw
that
> > should be noted.
> >
> > There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in
the
> > details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases,
coordinating
> > version numbers, etc. I can add that.
> >
> >> > I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take
> > source
> >> > code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they
wish.
> > I'm
> >> > not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was
thinking
> > that
> >> > the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
> >> > collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are
inherent
> > in
> >> > the license.
> >>
> >> Calling TDF/LO "one of many who can take our source" is disingenuous.
> >> They are VERY definitely NOT just "one of the crowd".
> >>
I did not say "one of the crowd". Please don't put words into my mouth. I
merely said that the target of this proposal is the IPMC, and suggested
that we ought to respect their time and not list things that are inherent
with the Apache 2.0 license and ASF policy. We should draw attention to
any special considerations that we foresee. The fact that Apache 2.0 code
can be used is not special. If the Lord Almighty decided to use our code,
but did nothing more, I would not note that fact in the collaboration
section of the wiki. But I would note Him among important downstream
users.
> >
> > I see this distinction:
> >
> > -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice
> >
> > versus
> >
> > -- An extraordinary collaboration
> >
> >
> > I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former.
>
> "Could be"? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that
> the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be.
>
A citation please, Greg.
I have not seen anyone from TDF/LO state that they *will* take Apache
code. Thus the conditional statement. Do you have a better way of saying
it that is also an accurate way of saying it?
> I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this
> email now. Come back later.
>
Regards,
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>...
> This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
name of "purity" (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
want to see here.
>...
>> Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
>> our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
>> can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified
>> code into LO.
>>
>> If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.
>
> That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having
> user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would
> especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that
> should be noted.
>
> There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the
> details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating
> version numbers, etc. I can add that.
>
>> > I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take
> source
>> > code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish.
> I'm
>> > not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking
> that
>> > the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
>> > collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent
> in
>> > the license.
>>
>> Calling TDF/LO "one of many who can take our source" is disingenuous.
>> They are VERY definitely NOT just "one of the crowd".
>>
>
> I see this distinction:
>
> -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice
>
> versus
>
> -- An extraordinary collaboration
>
>
> I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former.
"Could be"? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that
the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be.
I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this
email now. Come back later.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:57:48 PM:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
> >> from ASF into their products.
> >>
> >
> > This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
>
> ABSOLUTELY.
>
> Q: "How does the TDF work with the ASF?"
> A: "Snarf our code at will."
>
This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
talking about what collaborative activities we foresee undertaking. We
can't speak for others. We can only talk about what we're willing to do.
Since ASF mandates the Apache 2.0 licence, there is zero additional the
*project* needs to do to allow others to "Snarf our code at will".
> Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
> our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
> can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified
> code into LO.
>
> If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.
>
That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having
user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would
especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that
should be noted.
There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the
details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating
version numbers, etc. I can add that.
> > I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take
source
> > code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish.
I'm
> > not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking
that
> > the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
> > collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent
in
> > the license.
>
> Calling TDF/LO "one of many who can take our source" is disingenuous.
> They are VERY definitely NOT just "one of the crowd".
>
I see this distinction:
-- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice
versus
-- An extraordinary collaboration
I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former. But that might be
best emphasized in the "community" section of the proposal where we talk
about the larger ecosystem. We can highlight their importance. But I'm
not seeing anything that speaks to any collaboration that is qualitatively
different than what "any other" downstream consumer does. Different in
importance perhaps, but not different in nature.
> If you're going to write a section on collaboration, then it must
> include how they can use our code.
>
The Apache 2.0 license states how they can use our code, right?
But let me see if I can get your point worked in. We probably don't
disagree on this, just maybe where to stick it in the proposal.
Regards,
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
>
>>
>> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
>> from ASF into their products.
>>
>
> This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
ABSOLUTELY.
Q: "How does the TDF work with the ASF?"
A: "Snarf our code at will."
Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified
code into LO.
If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.
> I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source
> code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. I'm
> not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking that
> the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
> collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent in
> the license.
Calling TDF/LO "one of many who can take our source" is disingenuous.
They are VERY definitely NOT just "one of the crowd".
If you're going to write a section on collaboration, then it must
include how they can use our code.
>...
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
>
> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
> from ASF into their products.
>
This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source
code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. I'm
not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking that
the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent in
the license.
In other words, ASF madates the license. But what additional
collaborative activities does the *project* foresee doing?
-Rob
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:03, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no
new
> > options coming up. So I'd like to record the state of the issue. If
> > there is consensus on this formulation, I'll place it in the wiki. Of
> > course, if the discussion advances the issue or positions move, I can
> > always go back and revise,
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> > =Collabration with LibreOffice=
> >
> > LibreOffice uses a dual licesne LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to
> > which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we
> > would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can
collaborate
> > with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects.
> > This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events,
> > interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management
> > infrastructure, etc. And if TDF decides at a later point to change to
a
> > compatible license, then this would open up additional ways in which
we
> > could collaborate, and we would welcome that as well. We believe that
in
> > practice, the extent to which we may actually collaborate will be
> > determined by the licence compatibility issue rather than any
> > unwillingness to collaborate.
> >
> > -------------------
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
from ASF into their products.
(and typo in the first sentence)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:03, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new
> options coming up. So I'd like to record the state of the issue. If
> there is consensus on this formulation, I'll place it in the wiki. Of
> course, if the discussion advances the issue or positions move, I can
> always go back and revise,
>
> -Rob
>
>
> =Collabration with LibreOffice=
>
> LibreOffice uses a dual licesne LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to
> which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we
> would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate
> with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects.
> This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events,
> interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management
> infrastructure, etc. And if TDF decides at a later point to change to a
> compatible license, then this would open up additional ways in which we
> could collaborate, and we would welcome that as well. We believe that in
> practice, the extent to which we may actually collaborate will be
> determined by the licence compatibility issue rather than any
> unwillingness to collaborate.
>
> -------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org