You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de> on 2011/06/02 21:56:33 UTC
"opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org
Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related communities.
>
> If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
> explained in the proposal before we vote on it.
+1 (not binding)
Cheers,
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
> robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>
>> wrote:
>> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>> >> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
>> > related communities.
>> >>
>> >> If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
>> >> explained in the proposal before we vote on it.
>> >
>> > +1 (not binding)
>>
>> The ASF uses the Apache License. Some people will only contribute to
>> projects under a copyleft license. Arguments about these lines have -
>> historically - produce a lot of flames but little useful illumination.
>> (So I'd like to avoid another round ;-)
>>
>> What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
>> upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
>> spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would
>> definitely like to see the proposal explain whether this would be
>> possible and practical.
>>
>
> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
> ideological division as a given...
Mailing lists that end in '.apache.org' tend to attract people who
prefer this license choice. Calling this choice 'ideological' doesn't
further the discussion. Take it elsewhere.
> S.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> Which is exactly why I say "we are where we are" and we should deal with it
> even if it is to agree to disagree on some things. Can we work together and
> resolve issues so that people can enjoy using FOSS office software? That is
> really the fundamental question. Are we committed to use the available
> resources within the constraints we have? If we can agree that we are a good
> way forward.
>
+1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 3 June 2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> >
> > More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
> > collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
> > ideological division as a given...
> Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... that
> *is* a given. If people are wondering if we would change our license
> or even allow dual-licensing, then that is not going to happen.
>
> Not anything in particular about OOo. It's just the fact.
>
Which is exactly why I say "we are where we are" and we should deal with it
even if it is to agree to disagree on some things. Can we work together and
resolve issues so that people can enjoy using FOSS office software? That is
really the fundamental question. Are we committed to use the available
resources within the constraints we have? If we can agree that we are a good
way forward.
--
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: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:29:23PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I'm also suggesting it's
> /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
> openoffice.orgresolve to a working and current site without
> interruption that it deserves
> a mention (preferably a plan - yes, unusual for an incubator proposal) too.
>
Agreed... after all, we have some people around here that are
involved in the open source community and have some understanding
of what's important there :-P
Cheers!
--
===========================================================================
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: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
> >> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe
> there's
> >> a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer
> >> deliverable from Day One.
> >>
> >> Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an
> >> excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and
> >> TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution.
> >>
> >
> > Didn't I suggest that first? :-)
>
> I took your "business as usual" meaning that TDF simply
> continued doing their dev/build/release. My point, and
> maybe you meant it as well, is that they also take on
> the build/release of OOo on our behalf.
>
In fact, on Day One of the podling, you could even redirect
download.openoffice.org to download.libreoffice.org temporarily if they
would agree to include suitable explanatory information. Anything to make
sure the consumer downloads (a) are there and (b) are sustained.
>
> >
> > I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there
> yet.
> > There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its
> > inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, especially
> on
> > Day One. I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to
> > confidently +1 it.
> >
>
> Not strictly replying to the above point, but no proposal is
> expected to have every possible contingency planned... That
> is so the podling has the flexibility to determine what needs
> to be done. TrafficServer, for example, noted the TM issue but
> the proposal didn't (iirc) determine *what* to do; subversion
> and spamassissin also had to worry about continuation of code
> and releases, but again, the proposal didn't define a specific
> course of action. The intent is to start a podling so *it* can
> work those issues, handle pre-existing commitments, etc...
>
Again, completely understood and very reasonable. I'm just suggesting
gaining assurance that the magnitude of servicing the consumer brand and
binary is understood and not just dismissed as SMOP. As of right now the
text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's
/such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
openoffice.orgresolve to a working and current site without
interruption that it deserves
a mention (preferably a plan - yes, unusual for an incubator proposal) too.
S.
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
>> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
>> a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer
>> deliverable from Day One.
>>
>> Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an
>> excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and
>> TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution.
>>
>
> Didn't I suggest that first? :-)
I took your "business as usual" meaning that TDF simply
continued doing their dev/build/release. My point, and
maybe you meant it as well, is that they also take on
the build/release of OOo on our behalf.
>
> I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there yet.
> There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its
> inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, especially on
> Day One. I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to
> confidently +1 it.
>
Not strictly replying to the above point, but no proposal is
expected to have every possible contingency planned... That
is so the podling has the flexibility to determine what needs
to be done. TrafficServer, for example, noted the TM issue but
the proposal didn't (iirc) determine *what* to do; subversion
and spamassissin also had to worry about continuation of code
and releases, but again, the proposal didn't define a specific
course of action. The intent is to start a podling so *it* can
work those issues, handle pre-existing commitments, etc...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
> a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer
> deliverable from Day One.
>
> Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an
> excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and
> TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution.
>
Didn't I suggest that first? :-)
>
> One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF
> is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge*
> and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience.
> I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to.
>
I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there yet.
There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its
inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, especially on
Day One. I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to
confidently +1 it.
S.
RE: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I've been wondering if there is a division of labor that works for the short term while community-spanning work continues:
1. I'm thinking that it is important to recognize that LibreOffice has some remarkable momentum. There is a great deal they are on top of or are getting on top of, including all of the localizations, the user documentation, user feedback and requests as well as bug reports, and a development community that is charging ahead. The rebranding is going to be completed before the Apache Incubator will barely have sleeves to roll up. I'm thinking it would be good to leave them to it, with any tighter coupling to be worked out as there is experience over matters of common interest.
2. I see something, already mentioned, that the Adobe Incubator can claim as its initial territory: production of a reference implementation of a native OpenDocument Format processor along with component libraries and tooling. The idea is to have, starting from the contributed OpenOffice.org code base, a running, narrated framework for customization and delivery of polished products such as LibreOffice. There are a number of areas, some of them rather large, that the Apache incubator could carve out, such as providing a reference implementation and test suites for the OpenFormula component of ODF 1.2. I'm sure many others will come to mind. I think LibreOffice would take a stake in such work, as would other producers of ODF-supporting products. The reference implementation could also provide some missing calibration on the extent to which ODF is supported and what the typical omissions and deviations are (and ways to be transparent about them).
- Dennis
PS: Personal side notes: I don't care if it is called OpenOffice.org or not. Maybe not is a better answer. I am also a fan of the vibrancy and vitality seen in the way that LibreOffice appeals to a wide variety of contributors, especially those with a focus on overcoming defects and limitations that users have observed personally and bring to LibreOffice for clarification or relief. I didn't sense that with OpenOffice.org. I may have simply been looking in the wrong place, but it is clear that is being provided for LibreOffice. I want to encourage that. I fancy the some-kind-of-green-color branding too. And installs that don't evangelize somebody else's browser or toolbar or virtual system run-time.
I also worry a little that the pace of weekly beta and release-candidates risks serious regression failures and is not sustainable as a practical matter. I trust they'll adjust that in time as they rush toward whatever the vision for LibreOffice 4.0 happens to be.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:36
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer deliverable from Day One.
Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution.
One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge* and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience.
I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org
Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by André Schnabel <an...@gmx.net>.
Hi Jim,
Am 03.06.2011 21:35, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
> Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an
> excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and
> TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution.
Maybe a stupid question, but what should TDF actually build and distribute?
From what I understand, it will be a long way got get some product to
build in compliance with Apache rules and I doubt you suggest to
distribute anything as "OpenOffice.org" that does not follow these rules.
You can indeed point to the current OOo binaries for download - but
Oracle already offered to maintain the infrastructure during the
transfer. (Btw. the OOo 3.4 is in beta for ~1 months now, users are
awaiting a release sometime soon - this might not be relevant for your
decision, but from our experience this refelcts heavily on the public
perception of the new apache project.)
So although this might be a area of cooperation, I do not see how this
should work in detail.
regards,
André
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
> One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF
> is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge*
> and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience.
> I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to.
This is a concise capture of a critical point.
TDF could decide to ignore us. They are honorable and committed
copylefters. They've worked hard since the fork. They have some
momentum. From their point of view, the arrival of this situation
could, perhaps, look primarily like downside.
Or, they could decide that the opportunity to harness the efforts of
some number of honorable and committed non-copylefters is an
opportunity not to be missed. It is very much up to them. We can be
nice to them and even send a box of asparagus (they are primarily
German).
They could split the difference and choose to stand off for a month or
six and see whether the podling flourishes or flounders.
If TDF chooses to stand off, it will require heroic efforts to
maintain any sort of consumer continuity on the Apache side. A more
modest ambition would be to focus the podling on cleaning up and
hardening the build, test, and internal doc of the core code. Success
might lead to TDF adoption of that core. Or, what do I know? IBM has,
at times, had a vast number of people working on Eclipse. Maybe we're
going to need a special donation from them to hire 3 infra contractors
to respond to all the root@ requests for accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer deliverable from Day One.
Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an
excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and
TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution.
One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF
is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge*
and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience.
I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> And I offer a personal apology to Simon...
>
> Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the start of the week on <the service Sam won't let me name> offended you.
Accepted as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
>> And I offer a personal apology to Simon...
>
> Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the start of the week on <the service Sam won't let me name> offended you.
All come on now. Unless are referring to a the female portion of the
canine family a "service", I did no such thing.
Next time we all get together, lets buy each other a beverage of each
others choice. For those who are new to this list, Simon, Jim, and I
have known each other for a long time.
Apologies to Simon for singling him out, but plea to all participants:
don't see this apology as an invitation to return to the use of such
inflammatory language. This situation isn't one that any of us here
invited, and will be hard enough to resolve without such invectives.
> S.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
>> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
>> ideological division as a given...
>>
>
> Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... that
> *is* a given. If people are wondering if we would change our license
> or even allow dual-licensing, then that is not going to happen.
>
> Not anything in particular about OOo. It's just the fact.
I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer deliverable from Day One. That will inevitably involve a mix of licenses as the code you're receiving from Oracle has a mix of licenses, so it's not obvious to me why licensing is relevant *on day one*.
> Let's be honest: by "collaborate" you mean have the ASF simply
> xfer the code and the trademark to TDF and walk away... At least,
> that is the strong impression you give. Please correct me if I'm
> wrong.
No, not at all. I'm suggesting ASF ask LibreOffice to help it out of a bind temporarily.
> And I offer a personal apology to Simon...
Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the start of the week on <the service Sam won't let me name> offended you.
S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
> ideological division as a given...
>
Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... that
*is* a given. If people are wondering if we would change our license
or even allow dual-licensing, then that is not going to happen.
Not anything in particular about OOo. It's just the fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>
> wrote:
> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> >> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
> > related communities.
> >>
> >> If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
> >> explained in the proposal before we vote on it.
> >
> > +1 (not binding)
>
> The ASF uses the Apache License. Some people will only contribute to
> projects under a copyleft license. Arguments about these lines have -
> historically - produce a lot of flames but little useful illumination.
> (So I'd like to avoid another round ;-)
>
> What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
> upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
> spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would
> definitely like to see the proposal explain whether this would be
> possible and practical.
>
More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
ideological division as a given...
S.
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:27, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
>> upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
>> spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would
>> definitely like to see the proposal explain whether this would be
>> possible and practical.
>
> There is nothing to explain. The licenses are (one way) compatible:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
>
> To explain what I mean by one-way, here's a picture:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png
I much prefer Fitz and Dan's licensing diagram: http://www.cl.ly/5nAo
:-P :-P
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
> upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
> spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would
> definitely like to see the proposal explain whether this would be
> possible and practical.
There is nothing to explain. The licenses are (one way) compatible:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
To explain what I mean by one-way, here's a picture:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png
> Robert
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de> wrote:
> Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
> related communities.
>>
>> If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
>> explained in the proposal before we vote on it.
>
> +1 (not binding)
The ASF uses the Apache License. Some people will only contribute to
projects under a copyleft license. Arguments about these lines have -
historically - produce a lot of flames but little useful illumination.
(So I'd like to avoid another round ;-)
What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would
definitely like to see the proposal explain whether this would be
possible and practical.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org