You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> on 2011/10/14 14:07:22 UTC
Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
The press@ team has a new blog entry/announce@ about general issues
around the transition from the previous OpenOffice.org project to the
new Apache OpenOffice.org podling.
http://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_statement
(Argh, my mail client may have wrapped the line.) For a short link
suitable for tweeting, etc., please use:
http://s.apache.org/XCP
- Shane
Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Oct 14, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Donald Harbison wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> There are already comments that require response.
>>
>> Don H? Shane?
>>
>>
> Links please. There's alot, so I'm interested to see which ones you feel are
> priority.
I was referring to this comment:
Posted by www.meneame.net on October 14, 2011 at 12:54 PM GMT+00:00 #
Unless I'm mistaken, nothing has happened in the last 6 months: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300
Which was answered by Ross.
I am avoiding making any comments... my parents taught me ... although I sometimes forget ...
Regards,
Dave
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>
>>> The press@ team has a new blog entry/announce@ about general issues
>> around the transition from the previous OpenOffice.org project to the new
>> Apache OpenOffice.org podling.
>>>
>>>
>> http://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_statement
>>>
>>> (Argh, my mail client may have wrapped the line.) For a short link
>> suitable for tweeting, etc., please use:
>>>
>>> http://s.apache.org/XCP
>>>
>>> - Shane
>>
>>
Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> There are already comments that require response.
>
> Don H? Shane?
>
>
Links please. There's alot, so I'm interested to see which ones you feel are
priority.
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Oct 14, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> > The press@ team has a new blog entry/announce@ about general issues
> around the transition from the previous OpenOffice.org project to the new
> Apache OpenOffice.org podling.
> >
> >
> http://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_statement
> >
> > (Argh, my mail client may have wrapped the line.) For a short link
> suitable for tweeting, etc., please use:
> >
> > http://s.apache.org/XCP
> >
> > - Shane
>
>
Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
There are already comments that require response.
Don H? Shane?
Regards,
Dave
On Oct 14, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> The press@ team has a new blog entry/announce@ about general issues around the transition from the previous OpenOffice.org project to the new Apache OpenOffice.org podling.
>
> http://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_statement
>
> (Argh, my mail client may have wrapped the line.) For a short link suitable for tweeting, etc., please use:
>
> http://s.apache.org/XCP
>
> - Shane
Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Martin Hollmichel
<ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 17.10.2011 20:52, schrieb Shane Curcuru:
>>
>> "If it didn't happen on the mailing list, it didn't happen."
>
> I understand your point, but: Do you think you have all relevant
> stakeholders here on the list ? Do we have a common understanding who these
> stakeholders are ?
>
We do now ;-)
-Rob
> Martin
>
Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
Posted by Martin Hollmichel <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Am 17.10.2011 20:52, schrieb Shane Curcuru:
> "If it didn't happen on the mailing list, it didn't happen."
I understand your point, but: Do you think you have all relevant
stakeholders here on the list ? Do we have a common understanding who
these stakeholders are ?
Martin
Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 10/17/2011 1:58 PM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
> Am 14.10.2011 18:22, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Whereas it is in the self-interest of those entities
> Hmm, I think it's not that easy. We see Team OpenOffice.org (as the
> legal entity behind the old Community Council) still in the
> repsonsibilty of an uncredible amount of users which gave their support
> in the last decade to OpenOffice.org (the old one).
> And it was not Team OpenOffice.org acting so that we going to have two
> forks of the old codebase in the future.
> We'd look foward to support collaboration and to re-unify forces, so
> that we come to a stronger product and project than we ever had, but I
> don't think that it helps to ignore history of OpenOfffice.org completly,
>
> Martin (Team OpenOffice.org e.V.)
That's great news - I'm sure with your experience the Apache OpenOffice
PPMC will be very glad to see you participating on the mailing lists
here and helping to get a new release out for the podling. 8-)
I understand that this is a difficult situation for a large number of
people and organizations. The best way forward here at Apache is to
work with this PPMC on figuring out the new way forward with a future
Apache OpenOffice product that can make use of as much of the great code
and goodwill that the previous OpenOffice.org project created as
possible - both so we can support the end-users looking for a
high-quality product, and so we can support other developers wishing to
use our permissively-licensed code.
Two key factors for moving forward here at Apache include:
- Working in the Apache Way, on our public mailing lists. I'll repeat
an old phrase that is critical to understanding how we work:
"If it didn't happen on the mailing list, it didn't happen."
- Working with the PPMC - and other relevant organizations - to respect
everyone's trademarks. That includes the "OpenOffice.org" registered
trademark and logo which now belong to the ASF here in the USand other
countries, as well as the many other closely related trademarks used by
third parties in various countries.
- Shane
Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
Posted by Martin Hollmichel <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Am 14.10.2011 18:22, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Whereas it is in the self-interest of those entities
Hmm, I think it's not that easy. We see Team OpenOffice.org (as the
legal entity behind the old Community Council) still in the
repsonsibilty of an uncredible amount of users which gave their support
in the last decade to OpenOffice.org (the old one).
And it was not Team OpenOffice.org acting so that we going to have two
forks of the old codebase in the future.
We'd look foward to support collaboration and to re-unify forces, so
that we come to a stronger product and project than we ever had, but I
don't think that it helps to ignore history of OpenOfffice.org completly,
Martin (Team OpenOffice.org e.V.)
Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
As the PR states, there is a lot of FUD floating around from
*many* people and orgs that OpenOffice is dead, that the Open
Office podling has failed, that to keep Open Office "alive"
people must cough up money to help make that happen, etc…
Whereas it is in the self-interest of those entities to
create this confusion, no matter how much it damages the
entire Open Office ecosystem, the ASF is trying to set the
record straight, and clearly indicate that the potential
for Open Office is brighter than it has ever been, as long
as we all work together. Open Office is alive. The podling is
doing quite well. That donations are not being solicited or
"required" to keep Open Office as a viable codebase, etc...
If LibreOffice, as an entity, or people "behind" or "involved"
with LO are guilty of the above, then of course the PR applies
to them. If innocent, then of course it does not.
We are not pointing fingers at all; if people think it does
apply to them, the real issue is for them to do some soul
searching and honestly ask themselves why they feel that way.
On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Folk here at the LibreOffice conference are asking me why Apache has put out
> a release they read as implying criticism of LibreOffice. Can you give me a
> response I can give them please? I'll be speaking at the closing session on
> Saturday.
>
> Cheers
>
> S.
> On Oct 14, 2011 2:07 PM, "Shane Curcuru" <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>
>> The press@ team has a new blog entry/announce@ about general issues around
>> the transition from the previous OpenOffice.org project to the new Apache
>> OpenOffice.org podling.
>>
>> http://blogs.apache.org/**foundation/entry/the_apache_**
>> software_foundation_statement<http://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_statement>
>>
>> (Argh, my mail client may have wrapped the line.) For a short link
>> suitable for tweeting, etc., please use:
>>
>> http://s.apache.org/XCP
>>
>> - Shane
>>
Re:Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Folk here at the LibreOffice conference are asking me why Apache has put out
a release they read as implying criticism of LibreOffice. Can you give me a
response I can give them please? I'll be speaking at the closing session on
Saturday.
Cheers
S.
On Oct 14, 2011 2:07 PM, "Shane Curcuru" <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> The press@ team has a new blog entry/announce@ about general issues around
> the transition from the previous OpenOffice.org project to the new Apache
> OpenOffice.org podling.
>
> http://blogs.apache.org/**foundation/entry/the_apache_**
> software_foundation_statement<http://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_statement>
>
> (Argh, my mail client may have wrapped the line.) For a short link
> suitable for tweeting, etc., please use:
>
> http://s.apache.org/XCP
>
> - Shane
>