You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> on 2011/12/17 02:29:59 UTC
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
(or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Dec 19, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 19 Dec 2011, at 16:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/11 4:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>> Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release,
>>> it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts
>>> would show as a new block.
>>
>> why do you think that it is a different code base? It is exactly the code base granted by Oracle to the ASF. Ok we cleaned up the code base, removed external libs, replace some and developed some new things. I would say normal work in the broadest sense ... Otherwise the code base would change for every release and we have blocks for each of them.
>
> The elimination of all non-Apache-licensed code from the former codebase is hardly "normal work", and the replacement of the functions it performed with other code from other sources won't be either.
>
> All this pretence that AOO somehow a "business as usual" continuation of the former project is frankly unhelpful. Just face up to the fact this is a new project in a new venue with new rules, a new license, a new brand, and strong historic links to the former codebase. As Graham keeps hinting, treating this as a strength seems to be both the right marketing policy and a great opportunity to move beyond past hurts.
I think that we need to agree to disagree. Let's look at some AOO(i) accomplishments.
- Moved Bugzilla to Apache Infrastructure.
- Moved MediaWiki to Apache Infra.
- Moved User Forums to Apache Infra.
- Transferred Domain Registration of openoffice.org to the ASF.
- Changed the headers to AL2.0
- Replaced many incompatible components.
- About to move www.openoffice.org to Apache Infra. The new site is built and final adjustments are being made.
- All of the NLP projects are included - they are there for volunteers.
- Ready to migrate the Mailing Lists.
- Extensions and Templates plans are being debated by Infrastructure.
We are working to move as much of OpenOffice.org as possible, and it is a substantial portion of the assets.
It looks like there is some confusion about the fact that the project is new, but the codebase etc. is as much as possible a continuation.
I don't want to debate this. It is what we at the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project are doing. People are welcome to join.
Marketing discussions on ooo-marketing. As you imply there is a lot to do and energy is best spent doing!
Donations to the ASF are not directed, but if you look at the list above you'll see that Apache Infrastructure is doing a lot for the project and donations do support that effort.
Best Regards,
Dave
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 19 déc. 11 à 20:40, Simon Phipps a écrit :
>
> As Graham keeps hinting, treating this as a strength seems to be
> both the right marketing policy and a great opportunity to move
> beyond past hurts.
>
Your patches are welcome :-)
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 19 Dec 2011, at 16:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/17/11 4:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release,
>> it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts
>> would show as a new block.
>
> why do you think that it is a different code base? It is exactly the code base granted by Oracle to the ASF. Ok we cleaned up the code base, removed external libs, replace some and developed some new things. I would say normal work in the broadest sense ... Otherwise the code base would change for every release and we have blocks for each of them.
The elimination of all non-Apache-licensed code from the former codebase is hardly "normal work", and the replacement of the functions it performed with other code from other sources won't be either.
All this pretence that AOO somehow a "business as usual" continuation of the former project is frankly unhelpful. Just face up to the fact this is a new project in a new venue with new rules, a new license, a new brand, and strong historic links to the former codebase. As Graham keeps hinting, treating this as a strength seems to be both the right marketing policy and a great opportunity to move beyond past hurts.
S.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 12/17/11 4:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release,
> it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts
> would show as a new block.
why do you think that it is a different code base? It is exactly the
code base granted by Oracle to the ASF. Ok we cleaned up the code base,
removed external libs, replace some and developed some new things. I
would say normal work in the broadest sense ... Otherwise the code base
would change for every release and we have blocks for each of them.
Juergen
Michael's has the advantage that it shows the
> relative adoption of the various lines, something that Rob's (by including
> every possible variant regardless of relevance) tends to hide.
>
> S.
> On Dec 17, 2011 2:53 PM, "Ross Gardler"<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of
>> the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the
>> message I'm after.
>>
>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>> On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps"<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>>>>
>>>> Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
>>>> don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
>>>> (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>>>
>>> Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
>>> http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
>>>
>>> While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in
>>> helping people understand the current state of the community and the
>> extent
>>> of its diversity.
>>>
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Dec 17, 2011 4:13 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
> It's not the relative adoption I want to show. If I did want that then
> Michaels would indeed be a better document).
What do you want to show? Maybe one of us can help by coming up with a
suitable graphical representation that shows it without misrepresenting
other facts?
S.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 December 2011 15:44, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> Michael's has the advantage that it shows the
> relative adoption of the various lines, something that Rob's (by including
> every possible variant regardless of relevance) tends to hide.
It's not the relative adoption I want to show. If I did want that then
Michaels would indeed be a better document).
Ross
>
> S.
> On Dec 17, 2011 2:53 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of
>> the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the
>> message I'm after.
>>
>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>> On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>> > >
>> > > Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
>> > > don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
>> > > (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>> >
>> > Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
>> > http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
>> >
>> > While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in
>> > helping people understand the current state of the community and the
>> extent
>> > of its diversity.
>> >
>> > S.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release,
it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts
would show as a new block. Michael's has the advantage that it shows the
relative adoption of the various lines, something that Rob's (by including
every possible variant regardless of relevance) tends to hide.
S.
On Dec 17, 2011 2:53 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of
> the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the
> message I'm after.
>
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > > On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
> > >
> > > Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
> > > don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
> > > (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
> >
> > Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
> > http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
> >
> > While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in
> > helping people understand the current state of the community and the
> extent
> > of its diversity.
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of
the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the
message I'm after.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
> >
> > Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
> > don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
> > (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>
> Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
> http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
>
> While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in
> helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent
> of its diversity.
>
> S.
>
>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Dom 18/12/11, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
...
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:38 PM,
> Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Sab 17/12/11, Michael Meeks ha scritto:
> >
> >>
> >> Sure - if it is easier for us to include
> >> an existing feature, under an
> >> acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we
> bother
> >> re-writing it ?
> >> conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ?
> >>
> >
> > And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
> > had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
> > very well ;-).
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1208206
>
Of course that proves how consistent I am! I was
effectively saying that copying from others' work
(when permitted by the license) is fine. No pun intended.
> an English proverb about stone and glass house comes to
> mind...
>
I was not implying a double standard, if that's what you
mean.
In the case of my commit:
- the affected "code" is under a BSD license.
- I knew beforehand that it was about to be removed
from the tree (but may be brought back some day).
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> --- Sab 17/12/11, Michael Meeks ha scritto:
>
>>
>> Sure - if it is easier for us to include
>> an existing feature, under an
>> acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we bother
>> re-writing it ?
>> conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ?
>>
>
> And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
> had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
> very well ;-).
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1208206
an English proverb about stone and glass house comes to mind...
Norbert
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ross,
It's interesting to browse wikipedia pages named
"http://xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org"
Change "xx" to your favorite language code, for example, "el", which
makes "http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org"
And you can not find "Apache" on the el page, can you?
Now try:
http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
Can you find "Apache" on these pages?
That's why we should send an Open Letter with correct information and
update to the world.
Thanks,
khirano
--
khirano@apache.org
OpenOffice.org[TM](incubating)|The Free and Open Productivity Suite
Apache incubator
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 December 2011 22:50, eric b <er...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 17 déc. 11 à 23:26, Ross Gardler a écrit :
>
>
>> Lets not dive into another Us Vs Them argument, its not productive or
>> necessary.
>> Clearly Robs graphic is not suitable for my purpose,
>
>
>
> Well, it is not that bad.
No it is not, it does seem to upset some, but then it's impossible not
to upset someone.
>> neither is
>> Michaels. However, Simons suggestion of using the Wikipedia article is a
>> good one.
>
>
>
> If I was you, I wouldn't be so categorical : the french version pretends
> Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org ) is a
> fork
Hmmm...
Thanks, I'll put some more thought into this.
Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
On 17/12/2011 eric b wrote:
> the french version pretends
> Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org ) is
> a fork
> We probably should take an eye on the Italian and the German versions.
The Italian one has a terse but accurate description.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by FR web forum <oo...@free.fr>.
----- Mail original -----
>De: "eric b" <er...@free.fr>
>À: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Envoyé: Samedi 17 Décembre 2011 23:50:50
>Objet: Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
>If I was you, I wouldn't be so categorical : the french version
>pretends Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>OpenOffice.org ) is a fork
Eric,
If you aware about this facts, you could comment and contact the WP author.
I did it and ask modification of this sentence to:
"Oracle transfered the source code and trademarks to the Apache Foundation
that now provides continuity".
Sorry for the translation, I don't know if this words are right.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 17 déc. 11 à 23:26, Ross Gardler a écrit :
> Lets not dive into another Us Vs Them argument, its not productive
> or necessary.
> Clearly Robs graphic is not suitable for my purpose,
Well, it is not that bad.
> neither is
> Michaels. However, Simons suggestion of using the Wikipedia article
> is a good one.
If I was you, I wouldn't be so categorical : the french version
pretends Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
OpenOffice.org ) is a fork
We probably should take an eye on the Italian and the German versions.
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Lets not dive into another Us Vs Them argument, its not productive or necessary.
Clearly Robs graphic is not suitable for my purpose, neither is
Michaels. However, Simons suggestion of using the Wikipedia article is
a good one.
Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Lun 19/12/11, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> ha scritto:
...
>
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 08:40 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > Please don't take anything personally. I just find it
> > amusing that your signature says you are a
> pseudo-engineer,
>
> Ah ! fair cop :-) that's so people don't
> take me too seriously, and
> hopefully a good reminder to not take myself so; point
> taken.
>
> > I guess we are each other's nemesis?? ;-).
>
> ;-)
>
> > - The lcc preprocessor we replaced with ucpp.
>
> It'd be great to have some pointers to
> the code. git grep 'lcc' shows me nothing.
>
I don't use GIT.
Perhaps the Atlassian FishEye will be helpful there:
https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/ooo
but I don't use that either ;). Perhaps just look
at the ucpp module on SVN web interface and dig the commit
revision from there.
> > - The use of (GPL-incompatible) LPPL in some stuff in
> > the dictionaries. This was known in
> OOo but is not
> > an issue in AOO anymore.
>
> Well; I'll have a look into it; I
> suspect there is some semantic detail / difference in
> how Apache views this vs. how Oracle did (they were
> shipping it of course, with the LPPL license mentioned
We have no view about it, for us GPL or LPPL are both too
restricted so it all went away. I would think neither
would be an issue for a third party shipping the
dictionaries.
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 08:40 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Please don't take anything personally. I just find it
> amusing that your signature says you are a pseudo-engineer,
Ah ! fair cop :-) that's so people don't take me too seriously, and
hopefully a good reminder to not take myself so; point taken.
> I guess we are each other's nemesis?? ;-).
;-)
> - The lcc preprocessor we replaced with ucpp.
It'd be great to have some pointers to the code. git grep 'lcc' shows
me nothing.
> - The use of (GPL-incompatible) LPPL in some stuff in
> the dictionaries. This was known in OOo but is not
> an issue in AOO anymore.
Well; I'll have a look into it; I suspect there is some semantic
detail / difference in how Apache views this vs. how Oracle did (they
were shipping it of course, with the LPPL license mentioned and linked
in the license file).
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Lun 19/12/11, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> ha scritto:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 06:32 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > > I'd prefer to see myself as part of the freedom
> loving,
> >> non-corporate dominated group of hackers having
> fun.
> >
> > And that's fine because you are not me. I am real
> > engineer (Mechanical) BTW ;).
>
> I find your jokes somewhat hard to parse; I wonder
> whether this quip, juxtaposed with you as 'navy' and
> me as 'pirate' is intended to read as
> a qualitative comparison of the relative depth of our
> experience, professionalism, or product quality. I
> would build my defense of that, not on my MEng (Cantab)
> but on my decade of mistakes in the world of
> Free Software ;-) [ and still learning ].
>
Please don't take anything personally. I just find it
amusing that your signature says you are a pseudo-engineer,
and on the other side of the coin I am proud to be an
engineer. In my case being an engineer has nothing to do
with software so I sort of get a different feeling where
the "pseudo-engineer" thing comes from.
I guess we are each other's nemesis?? ;-).
> > And you still have more to do: surprisingly AOO is at
> this time
> > the only GPL-compatible OpenOffice codebase. (OK, I
> haven't
> > looked if Neooffice removed the GPL-incompatible code
> but ...
> > who cares about them).
>
> Looks like a nasty nucleus of potential
> FUD. If you are aware of some
> licensing problem, please send a reasonably detailed
> notification to
> some official contact point; info@documentfoundation.org
> might be good for that.
>
Quite bluntly, the licensing issues TDF may have are not
something I care about but I have warned some LO developers
in private of the issues we have found. Concretely:
- The lcc preprocessor we replaced with ucpp.
- The use of (GPL-incompatible) LPPL in some stuff in
the dictionaries. This was known in OOo but is not
an issue in AOO anymore.
> > > That in no sense means we will be 'based on
> Apache
> > > OpenOffice Incubating' - we will not be.
> >
> > There is no way around that.
>
> So you appear to think :-) the work is
> not yet started; no doubt you'll
> enjoy the result.
>
I am glad that you found a solution that works for
you, the AL2 is indeed made to have the code useable
for everyone.
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Pedro,
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 06:32 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > I'd prefer to see myself as part of the freedom loving,
>> non-corporate dominated group of hackers having fun.
>
> And that's fine because you are not me. I am real engineer
> (Mechanical) BTW ;).
I find your jokes somewhat hard to parse; I wonder whether this quip,
juxtaposed with you as 'navy' and me as 'pirate' is intended to read as
a qualitative comparison of the relative depth of our experience,
professionalism, or product quality. I would build my defense of that,
not on my MEng (Cantab) but on my decade of mistakes in the world of
Free Software ;-) [ and still learning ].
> And you still have more to do: surprisingly AOO is at this time
> the only GPL-compatible OpenOffice codebase. (OK, I haven't
> looked if Neooffice removed the GPL-incompatible code but ...
> who cares about them).
Looks like a nasty nucleus of potential FUD. If you are aware of some
licensing problem, please send a reasonably detailed notification to
some official contact point; info@documentfoundation.org might be good
for that.
> > That in no sense means we will be 'based on Apache
> > OpenOffice Incubating' - we will not be.
>
> There is no way around that.
So you appear to think :-) the work is not yet started; no doubt you'll
enjoy the result.
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Lun 19/12/11, Gianluca Turconi ha scritto:
> Data: Lunedì 19 dicembre 2011, 09:43
> Il 19/12/2011 15.32, Pedro Giffuni ha
> scritto:
> > If libreoffice takes the license headers it becomes
> an
> > Apache OpenOffice derivative, if it doesn't take them
> it's
> > still an OOo derivative and OpenOffice.org is an ASF
> > trademark anyways.
>
> Pedro, it's rather important *when* a derivative is made.
>
Look at it this way: OpenOffice.org is for all
purposes now Apache OpenOffice. By taking out the
OpenOffice.org headers and replacing them with Apache
headers they become an Apache OpenOffice derivative.
*When* is the moment they take the headers, so LibreOffice
is not yet an Apache OpenOffice derivative but is an OOo
derivative.
> Otherwise, even current IBM Symphony would be a AOO
> derivative and obviously it is not.
>
I understand it will be.
But then all this has only a nominal value that no one cares
about.
The big truth is that with SUN going broke and it's new
owner not interested in sharing that fate in the free
office suite market both Apache OO and LibreOffice have
a lot less than ideal manpower (I am talking about
number of developers, not quality).
No pun intended here, but none of the projects is making
major advances at this point and it's not like LO will be
replacing writer with GNU Emacs ever ;).
Of course time will tell, and I am very happy about the
changes being worked on here at Apache.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Gianluca Turconi <pu...@letturefantastiche.com>.
Il 19/12/2011 15.32, Pedro Giffuni ha scritto:
> If libreoffice takes the license headers it becomes an
> Apache OpenOffice derivative, if it doesn't take them it's
> still an OOo derivative and OpenOffice.org is an ASF
> trademark anyways.
Pedro, it's rather important *when* a derivative is made.
Otherwise, even current IBM Symphony would be a AOO derivative and
obviously it is not.
Regards,
Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Michael,
--- Lun 19/12/11, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> ha scritto:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 16:38 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
> > had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
> > very well ;-).
>
> But wait, did I confuse you with the
> chap who suggested that Apple's
> non-contribution back to FreeBSD was simply wonderful ?
> :-)
>
I said exactly that :). What is so difficult to understand?
Take all the changes you want from OpenOffice (respecting
the license of course), and don't look back.
> > It's rather interesting that for AOO the
> OpenOffice.org
> > legacy is essential. We are different from OOo in the
> > freedom given by the Apache License but otherwise we
> > are the continuation of the SUN/Oracle legacy.
>
> If you want to see yourself as the
> continuation of SUN/Oracle - I think
> that's a reasonably apt description :-) I'd prefer to see
> myself as part
> of the freedom loving, non-corporate dominated group of
> hackers having fun.
>
And that's fine because you are not me. I am real engineer
(Mechanical) BTW ;).
> > had a good quote for this "It's more fun to be a
> > pirate than to join the navy."
>
> Yep; I want us to be different from the
> horrors of the past. I don't want a single company
> choosing a 'meritocracy' for me,
And that's fine again. I don't have traumas from the past
(or openoffice.org email) and the stuff I do is not
sponsored by any company. In fact, I do only what I want,
can't be any freer.
>
> Yes - sure; we need a one-shot partial
> re-basing/conversion/re-licensing to get the code that we
> laboured on for many years under an acceptable, future-proof,
> copy-left license.
And you still have more to do: surprisingly AOO is at this time
the only GPL-compatible OpenOffice codebase. (OK, I haven't
looked if Neooffice removed the GPL-incompatible code but ...
who cares about them).
> That in no sense means we will be 'based on Apache
> OpenOffice Incubating' - we will not be.
>
There is no way around that. The new license headers are not
insignificant and are the main new AOO feature. It is not
a coincidence that Andrew Rist is the biggest committer in
the (admittedly short) AOO history.
If libreoffice takes the license headers it becomes an
Apache OpenOffice derivative, if it doesn't take them it's
still an OOo derivative and OpenOffice.org is an ASF
trademark anyways.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Pedro,
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 16:38 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
> had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
> very well ;-).
But wait, did I confuse you with the chap who suggested that Apple's
non-contribution back to FreeBSD was simply wonderful ? :-)
> It's rather interesting that for AOO the OpenOffice.org
> legacy is essential. We are different from OOo in the
> freedom given by the Apache License but otherwise we
> are the continuation of the SUN/Oracle legacy.
If you want to see yourself as the continuation of SUN/Oracle - I think
that's a reasonably apt description :-) I'd prefer to see myself as part
of the freedom loving, non-corporate dominated group of hackers having
fun.
> LibreOffice instead seems to be more interested in
> showing independence from what would seem to have been
> the past "oppressive" Oracle/SUN regime. Again Steve Jobs
> had a good quote for this "It's more fun to be a pirate
> than to join the navy."
Yep; I want us to be different from the horrors of the past. I don't
want a single company choosing a 'meritocracy' for me, where I can be
endlessly told by minor- (& non-) contributors to the project what
(mostly) cannot be done, substantially against the will of what the
majority of core contributors would want. If that means an eye-patch and
a wooden leg - it sounds like a good trade-off to me :-) Avoiding forced
conscription, rum, worse and the lash in 'the Navy' sounds like a good
plan to me ;-)
> And then all this independence is somewhat fake in that
> LibreOffice seems condemned to carry OpenOffice.org
> LGPL3 headers unless they get new headers from AOO.
Yes - sure; we need a one-shot partial
re-basing/conversion/re-licensing to get the code that we laboured on
for many years under an acceptable, future-proof, copy-left license.
That in no sense means we will be 'based on Apache OpenOffice
Incubating' - we will not be.
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Sab 17/12/11, Michael Meeks ha scritto:
>
> Sure - if it is easier for us to include
> an existing feature, under an
> acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we bother
> re-writing it ?
> conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ?
>
And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
very well ;-).
> I don't want anyone to get the idea that
> LibreOffice will be based on
> AOOI, and that this is going to be the rule.
It's rather interesting that for AOO the OpenOffice.org
legacy is essential. We are different from OOo in the
freedom given by the Apache License but otherwise we
are the continuation of the SUN/Oracle legacy.
LibreOffice instead seems to be more interested in
showing independence from what would seem to have been
the past "oppressive" Oracle/SUN regime. Again Steve Jobs
had a good quote for this "It's more fun to be a pirate
than to join the navy."
And then all this independence is somewhat fake in that
LibreOffice seems condemned to carry OpenOffice.org
LGPL3 headers unless they get new headers from AOO.
Just thinking out loud :-P.
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Rob,
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 09:49 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
> > Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
> > http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
...
> What that chart fails to show is the family tree. it suggests that
> LibreOffice is something different than OpenOffice.org rather than 90%
> the same, derived from OpenOffice.
You know - I would think the title of my blog:
________________________________________________________________________
Trying to visualise Open Source OpenOffice.org derivatives
And the title embedded in the graph image:
"Recent history of Legacy OpenOffice Ecosystem Derivatives"
Made this pretty plain :-) Of course the exact lineage of each build
from each vendor follows a rather tangled path; but no-one is trying to
deny a common ancestor between AOOI and LibreOffice.
> It fails to show that there always has always been an
> ecosystem of projects derived from OOo code.
Sure - my graph is mostly interested in trying to present a more
balanced view of the present, from which hopefully people may have a
better grasp of the future. Yours was (in context) talking about the
legacy tail, and frequent forking of the code-base as your title makes
clear, which is fine too in it's original context. I think extrapolating
from it carries some risk though; and it is sad to have so few
LibreOffice releases rendered.
> The fact is every user of LO is also a user of OOo code.
Sure, and every user of AOOI is also a user of OOo code, many of us
were also very long term contributors to OOo and hence (by extension,
and unwittingly to AOOI) :-)
> It is part of that ecosystem.
cf. the title of my post, and slides :-)
> Not just the past, but also the future. For example, I see that
> Michael is looking forward to using ("cherry picking") our recent
> improvements in SVG support:
Sure - if it is easier for us to include an existing feature, under an
acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we bother re-writing it ?
conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ?
I don't want anyone to get the idea that LibreOffice will be based on
AOOI, and that this is going to be the rule. The term "cherry picking"
is used advisedly - if there are cherries worth picking someone -may-
pick them from time to time as/when licensing is squared up on both
sides.
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>>
>> Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
>> don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
>> (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>
> Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
> http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
>
> While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent of its diversity.
>
What that chart fails to show is the family tree. it suggests that
LibreOffice is something different than OpenOffice.org rather than 90%
the same, derived from OpenOffice. It fails to show that there always
has always been an ecosystem of projects derived from OOo code.
The fact is every user of LO is also a user of OOo code. It is part
of that ecosystem. Not just the past, but also the future. For
example, I see that Michael is looking forward to using ("cherry
picking") our recent improvements in SVG support:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-December/021884.html
This is wonderful.
-Rob
> S.
>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>
> Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
> don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
> (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent of its diversity.
S.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>
> Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
> don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
> (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>
Sure. And let me know if you need any modifications. I should have
the source file on my hard drive someplace.
-Rob
> Ross