[italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

More info re TDF and LOo
----- Forwarded message from Italo Vignoli <it...@documentfoundation.org> -----

Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:16:53 +0200
From: Italo Vignoli <it...@documentfoundation.org>
Reply-To: italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org
To: Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>
CC: Louis Suarez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>,
	Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

On 6/1/11 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> BTW: would it be OK if I shared this email on the ASF
> general@incubator list...? Again, just to be open and
> public from the start.

I don't see any problem on my side.

I will share the link on our Steering Discuss mailing list, which is
accessed by the majority of our contributors, asking for comments. I
imagine that ASF is interested in knowing more about the opinions of
TDF members.

I will also read carefully the proposal, and make my comments. I
understand that it might still be improved (correct me if I am wrong,
because I have had just a few minutes for going through it, and to me
it looks incomplete or too succinct in some areas).

OOo is a very large project with a very large and diverse community.
In my opinion, it would be a pity to lose a percentage of this
community because the proposal is not inclusive enough).

I will be away until Sunday, but I will read emails every now and then.

By the way, I have tried to subscribe to the incubator mailing list,
but I am not getting the confirmation email.

Ciao, Italo

-- 
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
email italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org
phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813
skype italovignoli - italo.vignoli@gmail.com

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
===========================================================================
   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: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Kevin Lau <ke...@fas.harvard.edu>]

First time posting to this list and has been reading it for few days now.

Permit my naive question, can both organizations (TDF and Apache) separate
from their own licensing dependencies and establish an independent entity
(or something that works) to develop some code that can benefit both
parties?
-- 
Kevin

_______________________________
This email, including any attachments sent with it, is confidential and for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). This confidentiality is not
waived or lost, if you receive it and you are not the intended recipient(s),
or if it is transmitted/received in error. Any unauthorised use, alteration,
disclosure, distribution or review of this email is prohibited.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello,

Hi Florian

> I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion. The views shared here
> are not any official TDF statement, but rather solely my own ones, acting as
> a volunteer who has been contributing to the OpenOffice.org project, and now
> the LibreOffice project, since 2004, investing lots of my private time and
> heart into the community.

Thanks for jumping in (and for OpenOffice :-)

Sounds like our communities have a lot in common

(The convention at Apache is that unless clearly indicated otherwise,
we each just speak for ourselves)

<snip>

> Some opinions state that Apache would be a safe home, as it has a track
> history of successful projects, is well established and has running
> processes. I have read about doubts that our infrastructure would be enough,
> I have read issues about stability and safety within TDF, and I have heard
> assumptions of us being not a good bet. I think the events of the last
> months prove the opposite. Not only did we manage to get up to 93.000 EUR in
> donations already -- 50.000 EUR of them in just eight days --, which proves
> that there is a large public interest in what we do, but we managed to set
> up processes, infrastructure and a vivid, strong project in just a short
> glimpse of time.

Hats off for this early success :-)

Developing infrastructure, legal and organisational process takes time
and energy. Given a choice, would the money raised be better invested
in free software development?

<snip>

> To bring this to an end:
> I seriously doubt that having a separate project, even as incubator, within
> the Apache Foundation, would bring benefit for anyone. The Document
> Foundation has been working for months not only on shaping a project, but
> also on shaping solid grounds to work on, providing the legal framework, and
> our open, meritocratic and transparent approach ensures that anyone --
> individuals, organizations and businesses -- can contribute to the future.

<snip>

> So, my honest and open question is indeed: Why would the Apache Foundation
> be a much better home than The Document Foundation is?

LibreOffice has a home at the Document Foundation :-)

OpenOffice has applied to join the Apache Software Foundation, hoping
to find a home at Apache

Wouldn't it be better to look for ways to work together to disrupt the
office application space?

<snip>

> What, besides already
> being legally established, is it that Apache has, what The Document
> Foundation does not provide?

I like to think of this as a trade-off between options for The
Document Foundation. Already, TDF has captured mind share and raised
funding. LIbreOffice could continue as a direct fork with the money
invested in organisational, process and legal infrastructure.

Or TDF could allow LibreOffice to evolve into a pure GPLv3 licensed
downstream derivative of an IP-clean OpenOffice code base under the
Apache License. The GPLv3 is an excellent license very well suited to
distributed development. Dropping dual licensing would allow TDF to
adopt the standard lightweight distributed development process, and
use commodity infrastructure. The money raised by TDF could then be
spent developing free software under the GPL...

> What would prevent large organizations of working with us?

The process used by Apache is well understood and trusted by
corporations both large and small. We have experience of overcoming
legal and political challenges without compromising our core
principles. Building this level of trust took us a considerable effort
over several years.

IMHO it's great that TDF has the energy and ambition to take this
challenge on but the legal and process stuff isn't exactly a bucketful
of laughs (<ducks>). Why not avoid it if possible?

Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>]

Nick Kew wrote (02-06-11 17:48)

> Hypothetically if this donation had happened before the
> OOO/ODF split, can I assume that you would you have regarded it
> as a solution to the underlying problems and never have split?

Would have been a solution for part of the problems. Not all, as may be 
clear from some of the explanations given here.

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: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Nick Kew <ni...@apache.org>]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:39:12 +0200
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion.

Great to see you do so!  We (ASF) have a decision to make here,
and input from you (ODF and OOO folks) is exactly what we need.

However, I'm getting mixed signals here: your blog piece at
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about-oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/
seems to welcome this prospective development,
while today's post gives a contrary impression.

My knowledge of the Office scene and split is minimal,
and I expect many Apache folks could say the same.
My best impression comes from Michael Meeks's talk at FOSDEM 
which came as no surprise and left me with the impression
that ODF's goals are broadly the same as ASF's:
an inclusive community of equals.

Hypothetically if this donation had happened before the
OOO/ODF split, can I assume that you would you have regarded it 
as a solution to the underlying problems and never have split?

-- 
Nick Kew

Available for work, contract or permanent.
http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 02/06/2011 13:40, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> On 2011-06-02 at 12:09 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> Instead I would like to
>> understand if this technical objective of breaking OOo code into
>> reusable libraries that the various forks can collaborate on, is part of
>> the TDF mission.
>
> I am one of the LibreOffice developers.  I am not sure if such a mission
> is stated anywhere, but it is for sure something that is happening in
> LibreOffice:
>
> - from the LibreOffice day 1, we have split the one big OOo repository
>    into several smaller ones, hoping we would be able to achieve higher
>    modularity, and reusability of those parts.  Unfortunately, large
>    refactoring that is necessary to clean up the codebase shows that we
>    should have waited a bit with this, and we are going to merge some of
>    the repositories again.  If we decide to split some parts later, we
>    will do that incrementally.

OK, that makes sense. So if the work here produces this kind of 
refactoring I assume it is, at least theoretically, possible for 
LibreOffice to use this refactored code rather than do the work themselves.

It might be that LibreOffice chooses not to reuse the ASF code and 
continues with this refactoring effort independently. That's fine, but 
there are people out there that choose not to participate in this effort 
due to the adopted licence.

What this proposal does is gives LibreOffice a number of choices they 
did not have before. For example:

- they can carry on as now and do the refactoring locally

- or they can work with this project using the meritocratic process to 
ensure the project is managed in a LibreOffice compatible way

- or they can sit back and wait to see what happens before expending 
resources.

In all these cases LibreOffice can continue to make its releases, 
enhance LibreOffice and build its community. Nothing happening here 
prevents any of that, it just provides more options about how to get 
from "here" to the "there".

Ross

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Jan Holesovsky <ke...@suse.cz>]

Hi Ross,

On 2011-06-02 at 12:09 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:

> Instead I would like to 
> understand if this technical objective of breaking OOo code into 
> reusable libraries that the various forks can collaborate on, is part of 
> the TDF mission.

I am one of the LibreOffice developers.  I am not sure if such a mission
is stated anywhere, but it is for sure something that is happening in
LibreOffice:

- from the LibreOffice day 1, we have split the one big OOo repository
  into several smaller ones, hoping we would be able to achieve higher
  modularity, and reusability of those parts.  Unfortunately, large
  refactoring that is necessary to clean up the codebase shows that we
  should have waited a bit with this, and we are going to merge some of
  the repositories again.  If we decide to split some parts later, we
  will do that incrementally.

- new functionality that can be developed separately, in a reusable way,
  is indeed done so. The examples include the MDDS library
  (http://code.google.com/p/multidimalgorithm/), Ixion
  (http://gitorious.org/ixion), or libvisio
  (http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/libvisio/)

- we work hard on removing non-standard, or home grown parts that are
  obsolete, or have freer, or more widely used alternatives.  For
  example, we removed the dependency on STLport, and completely removed
  an internal library called 'vos' (system abstraction).

I am sure there are more examples, and I apologize to the developers
whose work I forgot to list; but these already involve months of work.

Hope that helps,
Kendy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

Hey Michael!

Thanks for the detailed response about your position, thoughts,
concerns, and philosophy. It helps greatly to understand where you're
coming from. Rather than debate you on your philosophy ;-) ... I'll
answer a few key points in your email below:

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07, Michael Meeks <mi...@novell.com> wrote:
>...
>        To pick off individual contributors from TDF is of course possible.
> There may well be some who have no problem with corporations, that
> apparently have zero respect for the will of the developer community,
> and little desire to play well: taking their work without contributing
> back. To pick off individuals however is a rather unfortunately
> pro-active strategy, I assume you are not proposing that ?

I would hope that we don't start a "sales pitch" towards TDF/LO
committers to stop contributing there. I *do* think it is helpful to
let them know about this proposal, the potential project, and that
they are welcome to contribute.

Yes, I understand that will divide the set of committers. I do not
believe that it will divide the *broader* community. From everything
that I've seen, you guys have been managing multiple divisions for
*years*. One more probably can't be bad :-P, though i believe that our
permissive licensing will help to bring some of those outlying forks
back into the tighter community.

>        I would hope instead, that ASF + IBM can work with TDF's governance to
> try to hammer out some ( I suspect grisly to ASF ) compromise. In my
> view, a key element of that needs to be copy-left licensing[2] to assure
> the project's future as a focus of real community collaboration.

Well... the ASF will never ship anything besides ALv2 code. No dual
licenses. No extra conditions. We would shut down a project rather
than alter that licensing stance. It's been asked a few times over the
years, and the firm stance has remained each time.

>
>        Regards,
>
>                Michael.
>
> [1] - I am un-aware eg. of either Rob or Andy ever contributing any code
> to OO.o (or having any broad / deep knowledge of the code-base). A
> strange choice, given the apparent presence of many articulate,
> competent, experienced developers on the code in each company any of
> whom would have been better.

I can't speak to why IBM has given Rob this task, but I see no reason
to immediately disqualify him. We need people with energy to get the
project off the ground. Then we'll need coders.

> [2] - perhaps we could avoid that by mandating that every participant
> merging a patch to OO.o sign a covenant that requires them to behave in
> an identical fashion to a copy-left license, in perpetuity: but then,
> that would further reward those who don't engage at all I guess, and ...
> well - seems over-complicated to me :-) but perhaps a way out (or in)

Committers to Apache projects own their code. We do not require a
copyright transfer. That means they can apply the patch to the ASF
repository under the terms of the ALv2, then turn around and commit
exactly the same code into the TDF repository under your licensing.

I don't know of the (theoretical) Apache project would want to impose
such conditions (dual-commit on its contributors, but I guess it could
be possible. But then what do you do with the ones who *don't* want to
dual-commit? Tell them they cannot participate? I'd prefer a much more
inclusive process... one that lets everybody join and participate.

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:

> 
> 	Sure - there are lots of nice side effects of rationalisation and so
> on, it all sounds good. But unfortunately IBM's move here is not
> primarily focused on that - otherwise (surely) it would work with TDF -
> where it has been made clear, it would be most welcome as a senior,
> leading player. Incidentally, Rob's diversity diagram is in my view
> somewhat misleading: large numbers of OO.o derivatives (no matter when
> they release) are already united around LibreOffice's work.
> 
> 
> 	I would hope instead, that ASF + IBM can work with TDF's governance to
> try to hammer out some ( I suspect grisly to ASF ) compromise. In my
> view, a key element of that needs to be copy-left licensing[2] to assure
> the project's future as a focus of real community collaboration.
> 

?? I am concerned about the strawman argument that somehow this
project is a ASF+IBM one; it's not. It's an ASF project (well,
podling). Despite maybe some unclear or over-eager statements
to the contrary, the people who drive the project are the
people, the individuals, within that project, no matter what
their affiliation.

This needs to be crystal clear.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Michael Meeks <mi...@novell.com>]

Hi Ross,

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 12:09 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> However, I do have a binding vote here and therefore I have a
> couple of questions for you:
..
> Are the goals of the TDF the same as the goals of this proposal
> to the Apache Software Foundation.

	I would say they are similar. Unfortunately, due to the very checkered
history of the OpenOffice.org project, licensing is very important to me
(and others, though I don't speak for TDF). Of course I agree, in the
abstract, that being vulnerable and letting companies not contribute
back -may- result in better corporate behaviour, active contribution,
consolidation and code re-use. However, I would hope we both agree that
this is not a uniform one-size-fits-all hard and fast rule. This effect
clearly varies between projects, and it has emphatically not been my
experience where I've cared to dig deeper: both in OO.o and elsewhere
eg. linux kernel device drivers :-) Perhaps you have some more thoughts
on where it works well, and where it does not ?

	Anyhow, I don't believe that the Apache license would be a good fit for
either of these specific projects. My view as to whether ASF would make
a good home is conditioned solely by that. Otherwise you're great guys
and there is much to admire in your governance, good community taste
etc. etc. :-)

> Specifically "One of our goals with this incubation project will be to 
> rationalize and formalize thje coordination of these upstream and 
> downstream contribution,

	Sure - there are lots of nice side effects of rationalisation and so
on, it all sounds good. But unfortunately IBM's move here is not
primarily focused on that - otherwise (surely) it would work with TDF -
where it has been made clear, it would be most welcome as a senior,
leading player. Incidentally, Rob's diversity diagram is in my view
somewhat misleading: large numbers of OO.o derivatives (no matter when
they release) are already united around LibreOffice's work.

> basing it on the Apache 2.0 license,

	This would be -the- primary sticking point for me; this is no part of
my vision. Though of course there are many other sticking points around
inclusion, respecting existing contributor's work, basing reality on
real developer contribution of real code vs. corporate connections[1]
etc.

> I understand there is a potential licence debate in this question. I'd 
> appreciate it if we could avoid that one (remember the Apache License v2 
> is, at least one-way, compatible with GPL3).

	So - to me, the business questions are all around good faith and
working together. The existing community of active developers, lets call
it "everyone except IBM" (as a rough approximation), have worked hard to
include all, and hammer out a flexible licensing compromise: MPL for
IBM's needs, LGPLv3+ for everyone else's. Of course, this is just one
example of a community compromise made by those contributing - there are
lots more. To have step one of the new unified world as: trash the
existing consensus seems an odd step here; even though I appreciate
Apache's work and like their license for where it works well :-)

	Apache was clearly picked, as a good match for IBM (+Oracle?)'s needs -
that much is clear. Unfortunately, doing that with a callous disregard
for the existing people actually working on the project is unlikely to
yield a great result. It would be a shame to see your passion for your
licensing harnessed against those who wrote much of the (volunteer /
external) code in question :-)

> Instead I would like to understand if this technical objective of
> breaking OOo code into reusable libraries that the various forks
> can collaborate on, is part of the TDF mission.

	The underlying structure is somewhat irrelevant to the user experience
and there has been a -ton- of pointless half-done re-factorings of OO.o
in the near past - most of them resulting in a worse user-experience :-)
The licensing is critical to developer inclusion, and product features
(we already include lots of copy-left code, -and- we have eight months
of changes by ~200 developers under those terms).

	I don't believe we can in any way meaningfully separate licensing from
code, or its structure, or the individuals in the community - all three
are bound together: I assume I'm not alone in thinking that.

> A follow up question to this is, again from a technical perspective,
> is whether you, as a LibreOffice contributor, believe collaboration
> on core components might be possible in the way described.

	I think it is unfair to make this an individual question. I've written
a little about this here:

	http://www.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-06-02.html

	To pick off individual contributors from TDF is of course possible.
There may well be some who have no problem with corporations, that
apparently have zero respect for the will of the developer community,
and little desire to play well: taking their work without contributing
back. To pick off individuals however is a rather unfortunately
pro-active strategy, I assume you are not proposing that ?

	I would hope instead, that ASF + IBM can work with TDF's governance to
try to hammer out some ( I suspect grisly to ASF ) compromise. In my
view, a key element of that needs to be copy-left licensing[2] to assure
the project's future as a focus of real community collaboration.

	Regards,

		Michael.
	
[1] - I am un-aware eg. of either Rob or Andy ever contributing any code
to OO.o (or having any broad / deep knowledge of the code-base). A
strange choice, given the apparent presence of many articulate,
competent, experienced developers on the code in each company any of
whom would have been better.
[2] - perhaps we could avoid that by mandating that every participant
merging a patch to OO.o sign a covenant that requires them to behave in
an identical fashion to a copy-left license, in perpetuity: but then,
that would further reward those who don't engage at all I guess, and ...
well - seems over-complicated to me :-) but perhaps a way out (or in)
-- 
 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: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 02/06/2011 11:39, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion.

Thank you for doing so. Speaking as someone outside all the involved 
communities I'm pleased to hear your voice. I'm not equipped to answer 
your questions, I'll leave that to people who know the various 
communities and intentions better.

However, I do have a binding vote here and therefore I have a couple of 
questions for you:

> I seriously doubt that having a separate project, even as incubator,
> within the Apache Foundation, would bring benefit for anyone. The
> Document Foundation has been working for months not only on shaping a
> project, but also on shaping solid grounds to work on, providing the
> legal framework, and our open, meritocratic and transparent approach
> ensures that anyone -- individuals, organizations and businesses -- can
> contribute to the future.

Are the goals of the TDF the same as the goals of this proposal to the 
Apache Software Foundation.

Specifically "One of our goals with this incubation project will be to 
rationalize and formalize thje coordination of these upstream and 
downstream contribution, basing it on the Apache 2.0 license, which 
should help us disseminate enhancements to the core more easily, since 
this license is easily consumed by all derivitives, even those with 
copyleft licenses. " (see the community section of 
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal)

I understand there is a potential licence debate in this question. I'd 
appreciate it if we could avoid that one (remember the Apache License v2 
is, at least one-way, compatible with GPL3). Instead I would like to 
understand if this technical objective of breaking OOo code into 
reusable libraries that the various forks can collaborate on, is part of 
the TDF mission.

A follow up question to this is, again from a technical perspective, is 
whether you, as a LibreOffice contributor, believe collaboration on core 
components might be possible in the way described.

Ross


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>]

On 06/02/2011 03:40 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Florian Effenberger<fl...@documentfoundation.org>  wrote on 06/02/2011
> 06:39:12 AM:
>
>
>> This would not only be about reinventing the wheel, but also about
>> splitting the community, leading to disadvantages for end-users,
>> contributors, and enterprises.
>>
>
> I'd like to challenge your assertion here, about "splitting the
> community", a nonsensical meme I'm hearing repeated in several venues.
>
> First, would you disagree if I asserted, as a fact, that IBM is not a
> member of LibreOffice?  And that neither is Oracle?  And that no initial
> contributors currently on the wiki are TDF/LinbreOffice coders?
>

Maybe, but the LO people are the ones in the OSS community, and I don't 
see any oracle FTEs signing up for this.

It seems to me, that in the Open Source world, TDF is the place for 
ongoing post-OOo dev, just as Jenkins is the successor to Hudson.

 > I think we can all point to many smaller such projects in this area that
 > have thrived over the years based on community volunteers, with 
relatively
 > little corporate backing, e.g., AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc.  There is nothing
 > wrong with this.  They are fine projects and have many unique qualities.
 > But at at the same time, it is perfectly reasonable for others to have
 > more ambitious goals, the goal of bringing this code base to scale in the
 > market,  a goal that can best (IMHO) be reached with strong corporate
 > backing, working side-by-side with independent developers, 
facilitated by
 > a permissive license and an foundation of unimpeachable reputation and
 > stability.


My desktop runs Linux. Lots of community there: volunteer and paid. I 
don't see it's license being a hindrance. What matters is that everyone 
is working together

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> And till now, I see no efforts to build a new community.
> I see no inspiration either to get people to contribute to Apache OpenOffice.
> 

You do realize that all this is about 24hrs old right?
You might as well look at a newborn and say "till now,
I see no efforts by him to look for a job. Slacker."


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Simos Xenitellis <si...@googlemail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>>
>> No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything.  You are free to
>> disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say,
>> "No thanks" without suggesting that it is immoral for anyone else,
>> including your own members, to say "Yes please". Let's not argue for
>> freedom by denying it to others.
>
> Just a reminder: that anyone's particular "goals", "priorities"
> or "methods" are moot: What is important is the *project's*
> goals, priorities and methods, and they are not determined by
> *any* external 3rd party.
>
> Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This
> is about working together. This is about building a developer
> and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip.
>
> If people do not understand that, they need to. And if they
> can't agree with that then, quite frankly, they have no
> business being here.
>

The information presented so far remind me of a bad open-source advocate
that creates a web forum in 60 minutes with lots of sections and subsections,
and invites everyone to come in and contribute, on an empty forum.
The result is that the forum remains empty.

OpenOffice is huge, and you need a community to support your efforts.
Without the LibreOffice community, you need to build your own.
And till now, I see no efforts to build a new community.
I see no inspiration either to get people to contribute to Apache OpenOffice.

There should be a single project, with a copyleft license, that
everyone joins and contributes.
OpenOffice is as big, complex and important as the Linux kernel. GPL
worked great to keep
the Linux kernel going.

Simos

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:11 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> s/my/the projects/
> 
> Peace?
> 

Of course... just making sure it's all understood... ;)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

s/my/the projects/

Peace?

-Rob

Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 10:52:16 AM:

> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything.  You are free to 

> > disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply 
say, 
> > "No thanks" without suggesting that it is immoral for anyone else, 
> > including your own members, to say "Yes please". Let's not argue for 
> > freedom by denying it to others.
> 
> Just a reminder: that anyone's particular "goals", "priorities"
> or "methods" are moot: What is important is the *project's*
> goals, priorities and methods, and they are not determined by
> *any* external 3rd party.
> 
> Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This
> is about working together. This is about building a developer
> and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip.
> 
> If people do not understand that, they need to. And if they
> can't agree with that then, quite frankly, they have no
> business being here.
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Italo Vignoli <it...@gmail.com>]

On 06/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This
> is about working together. This is about building a developer
> and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip.

Jim, please be aware that OOo end user community is just huge, but only 
a tiny fraction will show up on mailing lists (and most discussion will 
happen outside ASF mailing lists, because there are newsgroups and user 
groups and forums scattered around the net).

Community development is slightly different at OOo, and definitely more 
challenging.

-- 
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
email italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org
phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813
skype italovignoli - italo.vignoli@gmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 
> No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything.  You are free to 
> disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say, 
> "No thanks" without suggesting that it is immoral for anyone else, 
> including your own members, to say "Yes please". Let's not argue for 
> freedom by denying it to others.

Just a reminder: that anyone's particular "goals", "priorities"
or "methods" are moot: What is important is the *project's*
goals, priorities and methods, and they are not determined by
*any* external 3rd party.

Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This
is about working together. This is about building a developer
and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip.

If people do not understand that, they need to. And if they
can't agree with that then, quite frankly, they have no
business being here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

["Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>]

Hi All,

On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Leo Simons wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
>>> the podling.
>>> 
>>> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>> 
>> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
> 
> Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first
> arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :)
> 
> I recognize that all important smiley (note I'm adding smileys too!!
> (^_^) ), but let's pretend I'm ignoring that, in which case for me the
> actual answer is something like...
> 

[...snip...]

*IPMC member hat on here *

The snipped seems like a pretty nice list of things to resolve *before* graduation.

I personally don't think any of those are a blocker for calling a VOTE, next week that is. 

Some of these types of discussions going on right now could be happening on office-{dev|user}@incubator.apache.org. 

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Nick Kew <ni...@apache.org>]

On 3 Jun 2011, at 20:33, Leo Simons wrote:

> Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first
> arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :)

Strong +1 to that.  This is a big decision, and some of us would like
to gauge reaction beyond the confines of this list before voting.

> * Arguably you need _at least_ 3 mentors first.

If and when I satisfy myself on being +1 on the proposal, I'd be
prepared to put my name down.  I've been doing less apache stuff
than I should of late!

   [chop several good points]

One more point here: where are ASF's infra folks in this discussion?
This is going to put more burden than ${average-project} on them.

-- 
Nick Kew

Available for work, contract or permanent
http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
>> the podling.
>>
>> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>
> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)

Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first
arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :)

I recognize that all important smiley (note I'm adding smileys too!!
(^_^) ), but let's pretend I'm ignoring that, in which case for me the
actual answer is something like...

* The, err, awkward language in the proposal that was pointed out [1]
should be fixed first.

* Arguably you need _at least_ 3 mentors first.

* There is a ton of information/opinions/plans/background on
blogs/twitter/press releases/etc (for example from IBM folks like Rob)
that is not quite reflected yet in the proposal, which should change:
the proposal should be complete so that you can read it from start to
end, have a good idea about everything going on, and cast a vote.

* There is a ton of stuff at OpenOffice.org (infrastructure, docs,
...) for which it is unclear what ASF its relation is going to be to
it, the proposal is not quite reflecting the reality of what OOo is
yet.

* You reached out to a bunch of organisations and existing communities
and asked them to provide feedback and/or sign up as committers, and
we have mostly not seen the response yet. I'm sure many people are
still trying to get to grips with what is happening.

* There are some conversations going on that seem a bit heated now but
also seem pretty resolvable. It seems a good idea to get rid of most
of that heat before voting on the next step.

* In general I see a couple of very excited people generating a lot of
e-mail traffic which means a not so great signal-to-noise ratio (which
is normal and fine and such, this is _huge_ for a lot of people :-) ),
making it very hard for people that have to vote on a proposal to get
a clear hold of the signal. Making having a very clear and complete
proposal (perhaps even with FAQ) even more important.

(...)

I'm not much of a process junkie, but I think the whole idea of OOo
coming here also includes following normal apache due diligence
processes, which tends to involve slowing things down a bit when they
get heated up. I personally completely fail to get excited about
office applications (but welcome on board guys! Good luck! :-) ) but
you're pretty obviously not done with some of the basics yet. The
responsible vote AFAICS right now would be something like "-1, seems
like a good idea, but the proposal is not finished, so please fix it".



cheers!


Leo

[1] "Oracle and ASF agree [broad statement]"... "IBM as Sponsor" ... etc

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[toki <to...@gmail.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/06/2011 19:22, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and

I read it as a bona fide attempt by IBM to shove the project down the
throat of The Apache Foundation.

> I hope we don't need to deliberate for a full month, but I do agree

Make that a minimum of ninety days. (I realize that that is more than
nine times the average stay in incubator status.)

Of course, if you guys want to be really blind sided by things that you
should have known before voting.....

jonathon
- -- 
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.

If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
requesting.

                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN7LO2AAoJEERA7YuLpVrV0OcIAM4SbwT2d0Lqr5pJqEAx2QvB
+fUsKOx4IryskMcYAMlmhb98a+Dl/jvDsOarTAYLmvg5bpFGrO0QDM/hm8raNIkT
OeKmFgvt3WGT1rQuuzqyG77++up+A55qMBBgUAaTTjQEWraXa4VK2Se8SuTURJzE
Hc2H061epYidnF4QhQVakwf/3rtMPh5rD1Ut8hQPYLsndIbMe7xlzPoHkIxgYz37
/hxqPRZ+BSuynj9joiUJD4JxRIpNLmqfBeq1L6BF7F9Y4HEABvRhCijpEDstDbXS
HQ4SL2cQxfQX3NIgACNa7lT4beBz0QwcZ4MgtL2gZPVnlu2D1O7G+Gg0/LmQoks=
=Iam7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:22, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by
>> people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already.
>> Your invitation to start the vote NOW comes across as a snarky drivers
>> seat remark.
>
> Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and

Likewise. I read it with tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek. That's what
the smiley was there for.

aka JOKE

> even more likely that Jim wants to roll up his sleeves and get
> started), and furthermore, I have already publicly declined the
> suggestion that we do a vote now.
>
> I hope we don't need to deliberate for a full month, but I do agree
> that we should wait until some of the more active threads become
> dormant.

Right. Maybe late next week at the earliest, and (IMO) no later than
two weeks. I suspect that anything after the first week would be
"details best left for the podling".

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by
> people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already.
> Your invitation to start the vote NOW comes across as a snarky drivers
> seat remark.

Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and
even more likely that Jim wants to roll up his sleeves and get
started), and furthermore, I have already publicly declined the
suggestion that we do a vote now.

I hope we don't need to deliberate for a full month, but I do agree
that we should wait until some of the more active threads become
dormant.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org>]

On 6/3/2011 1:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 
>> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
>>
>> I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.
> 
> You need to flush your cache... ~20 committers.

You miss my meta-point, which was that those are the 18 individuals
who just happened to catch the buzz and get rerouted and determine
that they belong on that list within the past 52 hours.

Giving this a week to play out at general@, and for people from all
of the constituencies who might not be familiar with the ASF to become
familiar with what exactly is going on seems entirely appropriate.

Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by
people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already.
Your invitation to start the vote NOW comes across as a snarky drivers
seat remark.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> 
>> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
> 
> I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.
...
> Shane & Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add
> yourselves to the Mentor roster?
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal

You need to flush your cache... ~20 committers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've just finished speaking to Greg Stein, and I'm also newly time-available to help. I'd be willing to mentor, and Greg thought I could be of help.

An offer too good to pass up on.  I've added you before you change your mind!

> Danese

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>]

I've just finished speaking to Greg Stein, and I'm also newly time-available to help. I'd be willing to mentor, and Greg thought I could be of help.

Danese

On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:

> Re "someone from ComDev"... I'm seriously considering whether to sign up or not. I am ready to vote but not sure I'm ready to mentor (it's a time commitment thing). 
> 
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
> 
> On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:30, "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> 
>>> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
>> 
>> I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.  It would
>> be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
>> on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM folks who
>> have not yet signed on, and any Oracle folk engaged 'if only for the time
>> being').  If they expect to be committing, I expect their names on the
>> original proposal.  You apparently feel quite ready given the time you have
>> spent thinking this through, but since the bomb dropped on the rest of us
>> 6/1, it would seem appropriate to let this play out until 6/8 for a vote on
>> the initial committer roster.
>> 
>> About mentors, I'd strongly nominate Shane as a mentor, because I believe
>> that the whole OpenOffice.org trademark policy alignment is going to require
>> hand holding between our TM policy maker and the projects/consumers of that
>> mark.  Also, Sam seems to have a great deal of insight and would benefit the
>> project to serve as both Champion and Mentor.  Finally it would be good to
>> have on member of ComDev step up to help with community issues.  I wish I
>> could volunteer myself for a mentoring task, but can't realistically find
>> that many free cycles to do a proper job of mentoring right now.
>> 
>> Shane & Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add
>> yourselves to the Mentor roster?
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Re "someone from ComDev"... I'm seriously considering whether to sign up or not. I am ready to vote but not sure I'm ready to mentor (it's a time commitment thing). 

Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)

On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:30, "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> 
>> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
> 
> I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.  It would
> be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
> on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM folks who
> have not yet signed on, and any Oracle folk engaged 'if only for the time
> being').  If they expect to be committing, I expect their names on the
> original proposal.  You apparently feel quite ready given the time you have
> spent thinking this through, but since the bomb dropped on the rest of us
> 6/1, it would seem appropriate to let this play out until 6/8 for a vote on
> the initial committer roster.
> 
> About mentors, I'd strongly nominate Shane as a mentor, because I believe
> that the whole OpenOffice.org trademark policy alignment is going to require
> hand holding between our TM policy maker and the projects/consumers of that
> mark.  Also, Sam seems to have a great deal of insight and would benefit the
> project to serve as both Champion and Mentor.  Finally it would be good to
> have on member of ComDev step up to help with community issues.  I wish I
> could volunteer myself for a mentoring task, but can't realistically find
> that many free cycles to do a proper job of mentoring right now.
> 
> Shane & Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add
> yourselves to the Mentor roster?
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

Whoops.  Forgot to copy the list.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
>
> No; there are some good discussions going on (as well as some
> distractions, which is understandable given the visibility of this
> project).  I'd like to see the good discussions progress for at least
> a few more days.
>
>> I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.  It would
>> be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
>> on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM folks who
>> have not yet signed on, and any Oracle folk engaged 'if only for the time
>> being').  If they expect to be committing, I expect their names on the
>> original proposal.  You apparently feel quite ready given the time you have
>> spent thinking this through, but since the bomb dropped on the rest of us
>> 6/1, it would seem appropriate to let this play out until 6/8 for a vote on
>> the initial committer roster.
>>
>> About mentors, I'd strongly nominate Shane as a mentor, because I believe
>> that the whole OpenOffice.org trademark policy alignment is going to require
>> hand holding between our TM policy maker and the projects/consumers of that
>> mark.  Also, Sam seems to have a great deal of insight and would benefit the
>> project to serve as both Champion and Mentor.  Finally it would be good to
>> have on member of ComDev step up to help with community issues.  I wish I
>> could volunteer myself for a mentoring task, but can't realistically find
>> that many free cycles to do a proper job of mentoring right now.
>>
>> Shane & Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add
>> yourselves to the Mentor roster?
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal
>
> I've added myself.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)

I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.  It would
be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM folks who
have not yet signed on, and any Oracle folk engaged 'if only for the time
being').  If they expect to be committing, I expect their names on the
original proposal.  You apparently feel quite ready given the time you have
spent thinking this through, but since the bomb dropped on the rest of us
6/1, it would seem appropriate to let this play out until 6/8 for a vote on
the initial committer roster.

About mentors, I'd strongly nominate Shane as a mentor, because I believe
that the whole OpenOffice.org trademark policy alignment is going to require
hand holding between our TM policy maker and the projects/consumers of that
mark.  Also, Sam seems to have a great deal of insight and would benefit the
project to serve as both Champion and Mentor.  Finally it would be good to
have on member of ComDev step up to help with community issues.  I wish I
could volunteer myself for a mentoring task, but can't realistically find
that many free cycles to do a proper job of mentoring right now.

Shane & Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add
yourselves to the Mentor roster?
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
>> out his position.  As I read it, we could license
>> the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
>> for, as Simon put it, "business as usual" distributions.
>> If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event
>> upon which that license terminates, and the "new"
>> stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
>> under the mark.
> 
> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
> the podling.
> 
> These are decisions the podling should be making.
> 

Are you ready to call for a vote? :)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

Oh completely agreed there.  A lot of this hot-air
is quite premature.  Geronimo was nothing other than
a JBoss fork and we had no problems entertaining that
resolution, I see no major concerns for OOo other than
volunteer resources signed up for the task.



----- Original Message ----
> From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 2:12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the 
Community?
> 
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> > Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
> > out  his position.  As I read it, we could license
> > the OpenOffice trademark  to the Document Foundation
> > for, as Simon put it, "business as usual"  distributions.
> > If we wanted to we could specify a  time/date/event
> > upon which that license terminates, and the  "new"
> > stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
> > under  the mark.
> 
> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to  accept
> the podling.
> 
> These are decisions the podling should be  making.
> 
> - 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:

>
> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
> the podling.
>
> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>

They can only make those decisions if they know they have to make them. I
think it's very material to your vote whether the proposers have in fact
recognised the importance of the consumer brand and the non-technical
end-user community. I strongly suggest Apache take this seriously and not
surrender to hand-waving answers about it.

S.

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
> out his position.  As I read it, we could license
> the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
> for, as Simon put it, "business as usual" distributions.
> If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event
> upon which that license terminates, and the "new"
> stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
> under the mark.

Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
the podling.

These are decisions the podling should be making.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. Yes, I
> am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the
> list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented
> just for showing up.

This email has no place on this list.  Take it elsewhere.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Cmon, being bitch-slapped is why we're *all* here. :)

The fact is that I feel that having OOo here and, especially,
under the AL2.0, is a Very Good Thing. No, that does not
mean in any way, shape or form that I think that TDF needs
to go away, is superfluous or any other sort of nonsensical
stuff; there are some *obvious* ways were collaboration
is possible, obvious places where both sides can learn from
each other... But there are also non-obvious ones as well,
ones never considered because there was never the opportunity
to do so; I think it would be a real shame to not take time
to dig around for what some of those might be.

It's for that reason that I think such ideas as "simply
give it all to TDF and be done with it" are short-sighted.
Maybe in the long run, that might just be the "best" decision,
but it is *way* to early to limit ourselves to that.

Sun had an opportunity. They never pushed it and so it
never happened. Same with Oracle. Now that OOo is (or
will be or might be) an ASF project, the entire community
*now has options and opportunitis* that it never had
before.

I don't like any scenario that from day 1 doesn't have
cooperation as a top 3 goal. I also think it disingenuous
to suggest that either TDF or the ASF does not agree that
OOo will live, or die, based on that cooperation.

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

> I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. Yes, I
> am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the
> list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented
> just for showing up.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Cmon Joe, Simon's PoV has been clear from his tweets,
>> unless he has changed his mind... If I am mis-representing
>> his stance, Simon's a big boy and can tell me where I'm
>> wrong and I'll admit I was wrong. Does he say that *both*
>> TDF and the ASF has the opportunity? No, just the ASF.
>> 
>> Maybe that is a nit, but of such nits confusion arises.
>> 
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> 
>>> Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
>>> out his position.  As I read it, we could license
>>> the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
>>> for, as Simon put it, "business as usual" distributions.
>>> If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event
>>> upon which that license terminates, and the "new"
>>> stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
>>> under the mark.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
>>> Community?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 3  Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi  Florian,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I do see with great concern  is the need for a second project to be
>> set-up
>>>>>>> at Apache or any  other entity.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thing is that this is  done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP
>> to any
>>>>>> other  foundation.  So we are where we are.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We may be where we  are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
>>>> collaborate once Oracle has  gone - that's what "open" means.  "My way
>> or the
>>>> highway" talk - from any  side - is detestable.  ASF has the opportunity
>> to
>>>> reject the bait to head  down the path of ideological conflict, choose a
>>>> conciliatory path that respects  the existing community and especially
>> to use
>>>> the trademark (which is the only  actual asset being transferred) for
>> everyone's
>>>> good.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Simon Phipps
> +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. Yes, I
am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the
list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented
just for showing up.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Cmon Joe, Simon's PoV has been clear from his tweets,
> unless he has changed his mind... If I am mis-representing
> his stance, Simon's a big boy and can tell me where I'm
> wrong and I'll admit I was wrong. Does he say that *both*
> TDF and the ASF has the opportunity? No, just the ASF.
>
> Maybe that is a nit, but of such nits confusion arises.
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
> > out his position.  As I read it, we could license
> > the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
> > for, as Simon put it, "business as usual" distributions.
> > If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event
> > upon which that license terminates, and the "new"
> > stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
> > under the mark.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
> >> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
> > Community?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 3  Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi  Florian,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I do see with great concern  is the need for a second project to be
> set-up
> >>>>> at Apache or any  other entity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thing is that this is  done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP
> to any
> >>>> other  foundation.  So we are where we are.
> >>>
> >>> We may be where we  are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
> >> collaborate once Oracle has  gone - that's what "open" means.  "My way
> or the
> >> highway" talk - from any  side - is detestable.  ASF has the opportunity
> to
> >> reject the bait to head  down the path of ideological conflict, choose a
> >> conciliatory path that respects  the existing community and especially
> to use
> >> the trademark (which is the only  actual asset being transferred) for
> everyone's
> >> good.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
>
>


-- 
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Cmon Joe, Simon's PoV has been clear from his tweets,
unless he has changed his mind... If I am mis-representing
his stance, Simon's a big boy and can tell me where I'm
wrong and I'll admit I was wrong. Does he say that *both*
TDF and the ASF has the opportunity? No, just the ASF.

Maybe that is a nit, but of such nits confusion arises.

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
> out his position.  As I read it, we could license
> the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
> for, as Simon put it, "business as usual" distributions.
> If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event
> upon which that license terminates, and the "new"
> stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
> under the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the 
> Community?
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3  Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi  Florian,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I do see with great concern  is the need for a second project to be set-up
>>>>> at Apache or any  other entity.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thing is that this is  done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
>>>> other  foundation.  So we are where we are.
>>> 
>>> We may be where we  are, but we collectively have the opportunity to 
>> collaborate once Oracle has  gone - that's what "open" means.  "My way or the 
>> highway" talk - from any  side - is detestable.  ASF has the opportunity to 
>> reject the bait to head  down the path of ideological conflict, choose a 
>> conciliatory path that respects  the existing community and especially to use 
>> the trademark (which is the only  actual asset being transferred) for everyone's 
>> good.
>>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
out his position.  As I read it, we could license
the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
for, as Simon put it, "business as usual" distributions.
If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event
upon which that license terminates, and the "new"
stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
under the mark.



----- Original Message ----
> From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the 
Community?
> 
> 
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 3  Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi  Florian,
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> I do see with great concern  is the need for a second project to be set-up
> >>> at Apache or any  other entity.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Thing is that this is  done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
> >> other  foundation.  So we are where we are.
> > 
> > We may be where we  are, but we collectively have the opportunity to 
>collaborate once Oracle has  gone - that's what "open" means.  "My way or the 
>highway" talk - from any  side - is detestable.  ASF has the opportunity to 
>reject the bait to head  down the path of ideological conflict, choose a 
>conciliatory path that respects  the existing community and especially to use 
>the trademark (which is the only  actual asset being transferred) for everyone's 
>good.
> > 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

> 
> On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
> 
>> Hi Florian,
>> 
>> 
>>> I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
>>> at Apache or any other entity.
>>> 
>> 
>> Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
>> other foundation.  So we are where we are.
> 
> We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what "open" means.  "My way or the highway" talk - from any side - is detestable.  ASF has the opportunity to reject the bait to head down the path of ideological conflict, choose a conciliatory path that respects the existing community and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being transferred) for everyone's good.
> 

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.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 6/3/2011 12:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 
> On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>
>> Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
>> other foundation.  So we are where we are.
> 
> We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what "open" means.  "My way or the highway" talk - from any side - is detestable.  ASF has the opportunity to reject the bait to head down the path of ideological conflict, choose a conciliatory path that respects the existing community and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being transferred) for everyone's good.

In all fairness, in addition to a separate trademark grant, the stock example
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt form spells out the assets.

>From your perspective, the existing LGPL/MPL hybrid may already grant most
everything you require.  For IBM and others, it had not, prior to this
permissive grant.  That said, the definition of "everyone" in your statement
above would mean different things to different readers, and I'll step back
from the licensing discussion precipice now :)

++1 to ongoing collaboration by all OOo code consumers :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

>  and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being transferred) for everyone's good.
> 

And as a tangible, valuable asset, the ASF cannot, as a 501(c)3
non-profit just "give it away" to just anyone... in general,
the recipient must also be a IRS recognized non-profit, iirc.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

On 3 June 2011 18:36, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:

>
> > Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to
> any
> > other foundation.  So we are where we are.
>
> We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
> collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what "open" means.  "My way or the
> highway" talk - from any side - is detestable.  ASF has the opportunity to
> reject the bait to head down the path of ideological conflict, choose a
> conciliatory path that respects the existing community and especially to use
> the trademark
>

Which is what I thought I said :-) It's not just ASF though it takes two to
tango ;-) One option is for TDF to carry on with a copy left license and
OOo, Apache. There may or may not be practical alternatives but even if it
is the former case we need to agree we can work together. One side seemingly
trying to coerce the other into a particualar license (or anything else at
this stage) is going to be counter-productive.

It's why I think we need to get the agreement of working together first and
then discuss details of licensing strategy etc. One step at a time. Let's
get some TDF people on the commit list to show we at least intend to be
united in open source if not united in every detail.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:

> Hi Florian,
> 
> 
>> I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
>> at Apache or any other entity.
>> 
> 
> Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
> other foundation.  So we are where we are.

We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what "open" means.  "My way or the highway" talk - from any side - is detestable.  ASF has the opportunity to reject the bait to head down the path of ideological conflict, choose a conciliatory path that respects the existing community and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being transferred) for everyone's good.

S.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

Hi Florian,


>  I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
> at Apache or any other entity.
>

Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation.  So we are where we are.

 Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure volunteer work, I am not
> backed by any corporation, and I invest a lot of time and heart into these
> things. Dedicating myself to be against someone or something, or acting just
> out of envy, is surely not what I plan to use my spare free time for. I am
> also sure that TDF and ASF can cooperate and act like adults.
>

Yes, given where we are there is room for both. I'd like to see TDF leaders
on the commit list. This would mean that there was a real link for
collaboration. The main differences are the difference in licensing and
TDF's broader support of the odf file format. It doesn't need to detract
from TDF or its work.

I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others
> can comment much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how
> they play together, and what ASF could to with the software grant they
> received, may it be with or without other entities.


I see the licensing as an opportunity. We can have both a permissive and
copyleft development and those philosophically committed to either can find
a good home. Ok, we need to work together to make the two code bases work
together but that is a small price to pay for wider community cohesion.

I'd love to focus much more on the community and project side of things, and
> this is the part of my initial message that I still feel is unreplied: Why
> do we need a second project?


You might not need one, but it is there, it isn't really a choice, its a
situation and we need to make the best of it.


> From all those who propose the project at ASF, I have not heard much
> feedback on why this should happen, or otherwise said, on why TDF would be
> the wrong place to do it.


Its simply what Oracle did. We can't change it so we have to live with it.


> I do not want to juggle with numbers, but I guess nobody can deny that TDF
> has set up a project, processes, infrastructure and an environment to work
> in, that there is a lot of stable basis. And I guess that nobody can doubt
> we have been as open and transparent as possible. And, looking at the
> activity inside the OpenOffice.org project, I guess nobody can deny either
> that at least the vast majority of the OpenOffice.org community has moved on
> to TDF. I am not saying 100%, I am not saying 99%, but saying that there was
> a vivid community activity within OpenOffice.org the last months would be
> wrong, too.
>

Look, TDF people did and are doing a great job. Probably you guys
precipitated OOo going to a community foundation. Ok, its not 100% perfect
but its better than some of the alternatives. So let's work together to make
it work and we respect what TDF has achieved. We respect TDF if it wants to
continue developing a copyleft distribution of OOo. What we can't change is
what Oracle did, they bought Sun and the put the OOo IP with ASF.


> IBM, as far as I know, did not participate in that, so it is not us to
> blame if for you now certain things are not as you would like to have them.
> Only those who raise their voice can be heard.
>

I think this works both ways. Probably things are not 100% perfect for
anyone but compromises sometimes have to happen.

So, as I feel my question in the first mail has not been answered yet, I'd
> like to repeat it, and extend it on one further question, to everyone who
> supports the incubator proposal:
>
> - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
> a free office suite?
>

I think this is the wrong question. There is nothing at all wrong with TDF,
its just different in that it is developing code to a different license and
that difference is important to some people. Oracle are not going to change
and put the IP with TDF so we have to accept it and move on. That does not
mean TDF is unimportant. It is just as important as before! Maybe more so as
TDF leaders can become influential with OOo under ASF in a way they could
not be with Oracle.

- Why didn't those who propose this project talk to TDF about the issues
> that mattered to them and tried to change it?
>
> To me, the current approach feels like denying cooperation with TDF at any
> price,


On the contrary, I see no reason why TDF people can not join the ASF and
have influence beyond what they had with Sun or Oracle. Think of the Apache
and LGPL as complementary rather than competing.


> without giving us even a feedback on what is wrong with the approach we are
> taking. Within any open source community, a very open and transparent
> communication is crucial and key to any vivid development, so not only for
> TDF, but also for those who have to decide on having the project as
> incubator at ASF, it would only be fair to get a reply.
>
> Again, I very much respect the Apache Foundation and what they do, and I am
> not saying it is a bad home for an open source project. What I am saying is
> that TDF has all the processes running, has stable infrastructure, a working
> release cycle, has support from enterprises, has many volunteers, for
> exactly the project that is being proposed. In a nutshell, many of the
> things an OOo at Apache project would have to find and create already do
> exist. Wouldn't it be better to work together on joining forces, having a
> cooperation inside TDF?


But that isn't an option because of what Oracle did. So why not
complementary projects given the situation we find?


> I simply fear that there is a project set-up in parallel, whereas there
> already exists a wider community, an ecosystem, with processes,
> infrastructure and releases, and many sponsored and volunteer contributors.
> This would mean engagement is spread to two projects, rather than standing
> out united, speaking with one voice. And it would once again confuse users,
> leading to market irritation at large. Especially because no reason is given
> on why this should happen.
>

I hope I have managed to give the reason.

I hope I replied to all questions asked. If I missed something, this was not
> on purpose, so feel free to ask again, and I will reply to the best of my
> knowledge.
>
> Again, I am here any happy to hear the problems you see in TDF, why you
> think another home is to be preferred. I am happy to hear and discuss them
> in public.
>

Summary: No problems with TDF, the problem is that we are where we are not
necessarily where we would like to be.

-- 
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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 6/3/2011 10:20 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> 
> I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others can comment
> much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play together, and what
> ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be with or without other
> entities. I'd love to focus much more on the community and project side of things, and
> this is the part of my initial message that I still feel is unreplied: Why do we need a
> second project? From all those who propose the project at ASF, I have not heard much
> feedback on why this should happen, or otherwise said, on why TDF would be the wrong place
> to do it.

I don't believe these two issues above can be separated.  I'd also remind
that the communities have been split, and the time to have initially
reached a compromise was before the fork, so there were obviously some
irreconcilable points as the TDF drew its fundamental lines in the sand.

> So, as I feel my question in the first mail has not been answered yet, I'd like to repeat
> it, and extend it on one further question, to everyone who supports the incubator proposal:
> 
> - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of a free office
> suite?

I don't think anyone questions the value of a "Free" office suite at TDF,
and in fact all here sort of expect one to persist at TDF with enhancements
and community around Free/Libre Software supporters and platforms.

In fact, all of the conversation in this thread suggests that there will
remain a healthy ecosystem of various packing, training, and other services
around this code base, as there has been for half a decade.

> - Why didn't those who propose this project talk to TDF about the issues that mattered to
> them and tried to change it?

Because there is an ecosystem of BSD, OS/X and commercial vendors who do not
so much leverage the "Free" aspect of "Open" Source.  For this reason, some
number of Sun/Oracle customers licensed the open code from them.  IBM is one
of these.

The previous (singular) community supported both paid-commercial-closed
works and free-libre-copyleft works with their contributions and their
collaboration.  Certainly even the paid-commercial-closed side of that
world gave back much to the commons to improve the collaborative work,
through direct contribution, or subsidizing Sun/Oracle contributions
through their licensing fees, or both.

Experience with Free/Libre Open Source Communities and Projects shows that
such communities will not be flexible on licensing.  Neither will the ASF
Open Source Community be flexible.  It seems this was a binary decision...

It would appear that Oracle's OOo contribution to the ASF is meant to
extend the freedom for developers to choose to open or close fork the code
without the payment of royalties to Oracle.  This puts every consumer in
the same position as only the elite enjoyed previously, freedom to choose
between an open or closed fork, and freedom to choose between contributing
back or not.

I am now convinced this is entirely a licensing decision, so I'll ask you,
what was the probability for Oracle to convince TDF to maintain an Apache
Licensed project consisting of their copyrighted code base?  I'd politely
suggest they believed there was no realistic chance they could persuade
TDF to be the custodian of a BSD or Apache Licensed work.

As custodian/sub-licensor of the donated code, the ASF (or TDF, if that
were the case) retains the ability to modify the license.  Clearly much
of the interesting commercial activity surrounds online document services.
As the case is today, the LGPL and MPL of the TDF's works offers no
copyleft facilities for services, this would require an AGPL license.  So
given the choice between choosing a copyleft or permissive open source
custodian, I can appreciate Oracle's decision for what it was, and really
don't believe that conversations with TDF could have changed that outcome.

This suggests no criticism of the TDF, it's mission or purpose, or the
fruits of its labors, and if the ASF votes to adopt this new podling, I'm
wishing the best of success to both efforts.  I was initially sympathetic
to the option that Oracle might be trying to un-copyleft their codebase,
against the desires of a broader community.  Personally I would have
voted -1 as I would perceive this as violation of the spirit of our own
mission, effectively the pawn in corporate shenanigans.

But the fact that this was never copyleft, as pointed out to me initially
by Sam, leads me to conclude that the ASF is, in fact, a good home to
launch such an effort, and allows any actor from the general public to have
the same advantages and privileges which were once reserved for the elite
and most profitable consumers of this code.

Just want to close this observation by pointing out that IBM has been a
strongly reciprocal participant at a number of ASF projects, and I expect
nothing else.  I'm pretty certain we can conclude that Oracle will inhibit
Oracle employees from participating in a longer term way.  I also have
great confidence that IBM and other AL consumers will choose to contribute
back to an ASF based OOo for the long term, to the benefit of this shared
code base, and hope that other LibreOffice contributors also choose to do so.

So in spite of the concerns about the eventual number and diversity of core
contributors, about how the project would mesh with external projects, and
about precisely how much of the code is 'unusable' due to CC-AND licensing
or patents, I'm now prepared to support this incubation proposal and let
that podling work some of these more detailed questions out amongst
themselves.  I hope some individuals from LibreOffice also choose to become
part of this incubation effort and guide the effort in a positive direction
for all of the consumers.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>]

Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 19:57)

> Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to
> upgrade or modify their licensing.

Read the '+' in the licence ;-)

Cor

(still reading my way through, and understanding in the mean time that 
at any moment constructive contribution is expected ;-) )

-- 
  - 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:50, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>  Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
>>> all
>>> of the contributions it has received.
>> 
>> 
>> As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
>> licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license
>> agreement, so is unable to relicense the last 8 months of work under any
>> license incompatible with the ones used by those contributions.
> 
> Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to
> upgrade or modify their licensing.
> 
> Apache's CLA process gives us flexibility in altering our license. It
> is not a copyright assignment (whew!), so we don't have total
> flexibility. But we have enough... :-)
> 

Plus, of course, we have IP tracking as well, which is
a *considerable* consideration...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:50, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
>>  Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
>> all
>> of the contributions it has received.
>
>
> As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
> licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license
> agreement, so is unable to relicense the last 8 months of work under any
> license incompatible with the ones used by those contributions.

Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to
upgrade or modify their licensing.

Apache's CLA process gives us flexibility in altering our license. It
is not a copyright assignment (whew!), so we don't have total
flexibility. But we have enough... :-)

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>  Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
> >> all
> >> of the contributions it has received.
> >
> > As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
> > licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license
> > agreement, so is unable to relicense the last 8 months of work under any
> > license incompatible with the ones used by those contributions.
>
> Unable is a strong word.  I given that we are talking about
> historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be
> possible to identify and reach out to those who made these
> contributions.  These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights.
>
> In fact, these people can readily add themselves to the wiki right now
> and send in an ICLA and commit these changes themselves once the
> project arrives here; at which point the TDF has a clean base upon
> which to build.
>

Unable is the correct word. /TDF/ is unable to to relicense. If all those
individuals choose to commit changes at ASF they can naturally do so, but
that wasn't how I understood Noel's question.

S.

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>]

Sam Ruby wrote (03-06-11 20:22)
> Unable is a strong word.  I given that we are talking about
> historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be
> possible to identify and reach out to those who made these
> contributions.  These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights.

Ah yes, and part of them would not object, I guess.

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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
>>  Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
>> all
>> of the contributions it has received.
>
> As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
> licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license
> agreement, so is unable to relicense the last 8 months of work under any
> license incompatible with the ones used by those contributions.

Unable is a strong word.  I given that we are talking about
historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be
possible to identify and reach out to those who made these
contributions.  These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights.

In fact, these people can readily add themselves to the wiki right now
and send in an ICLA and commit these changes themselves once the
project arrives here; at which point the TDF has a clean base upon
which to build.

> S.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:

>  Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
> all
> of the contributions it has received.


As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license
agreement, so is unable to relicense the last 8 months of work under any
license incompatible with the ones used by those contributions.

S.

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

["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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

["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...

["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...

[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...

["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...

[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...

[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...

["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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

["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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

On 3 June 2011 18:21, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:

> Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman:
> > > Sam Ruby wrote:
> > > > From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> > > > one.  TDF is now in the position where it has a  historic opportunity
> > > > to change their license to the Apache License.
> > >
> > > As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to "replace" their
> > > original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License.
> > >
> > > But I have questions about their ability to relicense new
> contributions,
> > > based on what I read at
> > > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing
> > > policy linked from there.  It does not seem clear to me that TDF can
> > > unilaterally relicense all contributions.
>
> > At least to start with they don't need to change anything.
>
> No, they don't.  But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the "historic
> opportunity to change their license to the Apache License", which makes it
> much easier to (quoting you, now), "cooperate with ASF to make the two
> projects work as harmoniously as possible."
>
> At least some folks at TDF seem to feel slighted by recent developments.  I
> understand, but they should not, at least from the ASF's perspective.  TDF
> did nothing wrong, and there is nothing wrong with TDF.  They did the best
> that they could with the licensing cards dealt to them.  That situation has
> now changed, with the software grant to the ASF and resulting change in
> licensing.
>
> That change is essential to various parties, and while it should not be
> taken to reflect negatively on TDF, nor can it be ignored.  The license is,
> as Sam said, "essential."
>
> As Sam said, if TDF is willing and able to relicense, "all sorts of
> frictionless exchange would be possible, and all sorts of divisions of
> labor
> could be contemplated.  In fact, the division of labor could be dynamic in
> that we could experiment with all sorts of different arrangements and find
> out what works best."
>
> Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense all
> of the contributions it has received.
>

I think that is a step further on.  To start with we need TDF to feel less
threatened by all this. Let's relax and work together and see what comes out
of the licensing issues. Whether or not they want to change their license
they are colleagues and friends first and foremost. I think we all need to
respect that these decisions are for TDF to make in their own good time. In
the mean time we have to first get commitment to work together on things as
they stand.

-- 
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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Italo Vignoli <it...@gmail.com>]

On 06/03/2011 07:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> No, they don't.  But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the "historic
> opportunity to change their license to the Apache License", which makes it
> much easier to (quoting you, now), "cooperate with ASF to make the two
> projects work as harmoniously as possible."

Sorry, but - as an end user not too fond of corporations predating open 
source projects in order to produce their proprietary SW, I do not see 
this as an "historic opportunity" but as a "huge mistake".

-- 
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
email italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org
phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813
skype italovignoli - italo.vignoli@gmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Ian Lynch wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman:
> > Sam Ruby wrote:
> > > From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> > > one.  TDF is now in the position where it has a  historic opportunity
> > > to change their license to the Apache License.
> >
> > As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to "replace" their
> > original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License.
> >
> > But I have questions about their ability to relicense new contributions,
> > based on what I read at
> > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing
> > policy linked from there.  It does not seem clear to me that TDF can
> > unilaterally relicense all contributions.

> At least to start with they don't need to change anything.

No, they don't.  But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the "historic
opportunity to change their license to the Apache License", which makes it
much easier to (quoting you, now), "cooperate with ASF to make the two
projects work as harmoniously as possible."

At least some folks at TDF seem to feel slighted by recent developments.  I
understand, but they should not, at least from the ASF's perspective.  TDF
did nothing wrong, and there is nothing wrong with TDF.  They did the best
that they could with the licensing cards dealt to them.  That situation has
now changed, with the software grant to the ASF and resulting change in
licensing.

That change is essential to various parties, and while it should not be
taken to reflect negatively on TDF, nor can it be ignored.  The license is,
as Sam said, "essential."

As Sam said, if TDF is willing and able to relicense, "all sorts of
frictionless exchange would be possible, and all sorts of divisions of labor
could be contemplated.  In fact, the division of labor could be dynamic in
that we could experiment with all sorts of different arrangements and find
out what works best."

Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense all
of the contributions it has received.

	--- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

On 3 June 2011 17:16, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> > one.  TDF is now in the position where it has a  historic opportunity
> > to change their license to the Apache License.
>
> As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to "replace" their
> original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License.
>
> But I have questions about their ability to relicense new contributions,
> based on what I read at
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing
> policy linked from there.  It does not seem clear to me that TDF can
> unilaterally relicense all contributions.
>
>        --- Noel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

At least to start with they don't need to change anything. They can carry on
producing a copyleft product and cooperate with ASF to make the two projects
work as harmoniously as possible.

-- 
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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Sam Ruby wrote:
> From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> one.  TDF is now in the position where it has a  historic opportunity
> to change their license to the Apache License.

As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to "replace" their original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License.

But I have questions about their ability to relicense new contributions, based on what I read at http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing policy linked from there.  It does not seem clear to me that TDF can unilaterally relicense all contributions.

	--- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here

[snip]

> I hope I replied to all questions asked. If I missed something, this was not
> on purpose, so feel free to ask again, and I will reply to the best of my
> knowledge.

I'd like to discuss the license issue.

>From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one.  TDF is now in the position where it has a  historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.  If they were to do so,
there would be frictionless exchange of code between the various
groups.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>]

Hi Rob,

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote (03-06-11 17:59)
> "Allen Pulsifer"<pu...@openoffice.org>  wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
> AM:
>> It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
>> is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL.  If The Document
>> Foundation
>> is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or
>> possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you
>> might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF.
>>
>
> Without commenting on the merit of the idea, a practical difficulty is
> that [...]

Maybe you did comment on the merit of it in another post ?
If not, pls..

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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

"Allen Pulsifer" <pu...@openoffice.org> wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03 
AM:

> 
> It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that 
is
> licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL.  If The Document 
Foundation
> is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or
> possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you
> might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF.
> 

Without commenting on the merit of the idea, a practical difficulty is 
that TDF is not able to change to Apache 2.0, since Oracle owns the 
copyright.  LO is tied to GPL and can only add more lenient license 
choices for new contributions to their project.

But even if they had free access under Apache 2.0 to OpenOffice or even if 
Oracle assigned them the copyright directly, they still have the issue of 
any deltas they have since LO started.

GPL was designed to prevent this kind of collaboration.  It is working as 
designed.

-Rob


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Allen Pulsifer <pu...@openoffice.org> wrote:
>> - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
> a free office suite?
>
> It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
> and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about that.
> However, to the extent that it was driven by Oracle, that should not be held
> against IBM, since IBM did not own the code and had to go with proposal that
> would be acceptable to Oracle.

In the interest of full disclosure: I am an IBM employee.  I am not in
the division that works on Lotus Symphony nor do I have anything
resembling a decision making capacity for an issue as large as this
one.  Nor do I speak for IBM.  And finally, this clearly was Oracle's
donation.

That being said, it has been a rather eventful week or so for me as I
have done everything I could to remove obstacles -- real or perceived
-- to make this happen.

And I am in a decision making capacity in the ASF.

> It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that is
> licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL.  If The Document Foundation
> is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or
> possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you
> might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF.

If we could agree on a common license, all sorts of frictionless
exchange would be possible, and all sorts of divisions of labor could
be contemplated.  In fact, the division of labor could be dynamic in
that we could experiment with all sorts of different arrangements and
find out what works best.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Allen Pulsifer <pu...@openoffice.org>]

> - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
a free office suite?

It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about that.
However, to the extent that it was driven by Oracle, that should not be held
against IBM, since IBM did not own the code and had to go with proposal that
would be acceptable to Oracle.

It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that is
licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL.  If The Document Foundation
is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or
possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you
might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hello everyone,

and thanks for the feedback to my initial mail. I've read many other 
messages and blog postings, and would like to focus on just a hand full 
of points that I think are crucial. Everything I leave out I do not 
leave out because I consider it unimportant in general, but because I 
think other aspects are more important for the moment. If there's a 
particular point you would like to have discussed, or a particular 
question I have overlooked, please ask - as said, I am happy to answer 
all of these as good as I can. Again, all replies here are my personal 
ones, as longtime volunteer contributor, and are not necessarily TDF 
statements. However, as we seem to agree in that a community is made out 
of individuals, this seems to be a good start.

I first would like to answer the question, about whether I have mixed 
feelings or not. I share the TDF statement that we are happy that Oracle 
has taken this step, because giving assets to an independent 
organization is a good way to go, and a good start. That is what I find 
positive about that step - Oracle could also have simply decided to keep 
their assets and do nothing with them, or sell them to a commercial 
entity, so having it with a foundation is much better. So, it is 
positive to me that an independent foundation is involved. What - and 
this statement is what might have lead to confusion about my feelings - 
I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be 
set-up at Apache or any other entity.

Of course, people can choose, open source has the freedom to create 
derivative works, and the last that I want is to take those freedoms 
from anyone. I also have heard voices that we would be afraid of losing 
the driver's seat, or that we would be simply surprised and annoyed by 
the recent move, and therefore are against it, because we would have 
loved to see Oracle donating assets to us. Let me speak for my self: I 
do this as a pure volunteer work, I am not backed by any corporation, 
and I invest a lot of time and heart into these things. Dedicating 
myself to be against someone or something, or acting just out of envy, 
is surely not what I plan to use my spare free time for. I am also sure 
that TDF and ASF can cooperate and act like adults.

I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as 
others can comment much better about the impact of the various licenses, 
and how they play together, and what ASF could to with the software 
grant they received, may it be with or without other entities. I'd love 
to focus much more on the community and project side of things, and this 
is the part of my initial message that I still feel is unreplied: Why do 
we need a second project? From all those who propose the project at ASF, 
I have not heard much feedback on why this should happen, or otherwise 
said, on why TDF would be the wrong place to do it. I do not want to 
juggle with numbers, but I guess nobody can deny that TDF has set up a 
project, processes, infrastructure and an environment to work in, that 
there is a lot of stable basis. And I guess that nobody can doubt we 
have been as open and transparent as possible. And, looking at the 
activity inside the OpenOffice.org project, I guess nobody can deny 
either that at least the vast majority of the OpenOffice.org community 
has moved on to TDF. I am not saying 100%, I am not saying 99%, but 
saying that there was a vivid community activity within OpenOffice.org 
the last months would be wrong, too.

This is the point where I would like to answer to the next question. 
Rob, you asked whether IBM is a member of LibreOffice. Formally spoken, 
corporations cannot become members of TDF, but only individuals can be, 
and if I understood it right, this is a similar approach than Apache 
takes. On the other hand, since September 28th, there has been lots of 
chances to get involved. We have weekly open calls, we have mailing 
lists, and you also have contact data of many of the Steering Committee 
members. If you are interested to get involved, you could have done so 
anytime. Discussion about the governance, about the location of the 
foundation, even about the license of future software contributions, 
have been taken in public, with enough time to react for anyone. IBM, as 
far as I know, did not participate in that, so it is not us to blame if 
for you now certain things are not as you would like to have them. Only 
those who raise their voice can be heard.

So, as I feel my question in the first mail has not been answered yet, 
I'd like to repeat it, and extend it on one further question, to 
everyone who supports the incubator proposal:

- What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home 
of a free office suite?

- Why didn't those who propose this project talk to TDF about the issues 
that mattered to them and tried to change it?

To me, the current approach feels like denying cooperation with TDF at 
any price, without giving us even a feedback on what is wrong with the 
approach we are taking. Within any open source community, a very open 
and transparent communication is crucial and key to any vivid 
development, so not only for TDF, but also for those who have to decide 
on having the project as incubator at ASF, it would only be fair to get 
a reply.

Again, I very much respect the Apache Foundation and what they do, and I 
am not saying it is a bad home for an open source project. What I am 
saying is that TDF has all the processes running, has stable 
infrastructure, a working release cycle, has support from enterprises, 
has many volunteers, for exactly the project that is being proposed. In 
a nutshell, many of the things an OOo at Apache project would have to 
find and create already do exist. Wouldn't it be better to work together 
on joining forces, having a cooperation inside TDF? The approach we have 
taken does give individuals as well as representatives of corporations 
power and influence to change things whe way they need them. Nothing is 
fixed, the community - where everyone can be part of - decides. Anyone 
who brings in either volunteers or paid engineers working on the code or 
in any other field, based on our meritocratic approach, would have an 
influence.

I simply fear that there is a project set-up in parallel, whereas there 
already exists a wider community, an ecosystem, with processes, 
infrastructure and releases, and many sponsored and volunteer 
contributors. This would mean engagement is spread to two projects, 
rather than standing out united, speaking with one voice. And it would 
once again confuse users, leading to market irritation at large. 
Especially because no reason is given on why this should happen.

I hope I replied to all questions asked. If I missed something, this was 
not on purpose, so feel free to ask again, and I will reply to the best 
of my knowledge.

Again, I am here any happy to hear the problems you see in TDF, why you 
think another home is to be preferred. I am happy to hear and discuss 
them in public.

Thanks for reading,
Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]

[Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com>]

Hi Steve,

Am 07.06.2011 15:27, schrieb Steve Loughran:
> [...]
>>
>
> The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just 
> "vanishes". They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend 
> to drift off, go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The 
> turnover/year may be the same, but the way the turnover happens is 
> different.
>
> to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on 
> the projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status 
> through their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the 
> active knowledge goes along with their departure
That are valid concerns. What I like to point out that at this moment I 
count at least 7 Oracle people who want to contribute
as an individual. So I think this is an indication that there is a 
strong interest in the project itself that is not directly bound
to the salary :-)

Regards,
Christian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]

[Christian Lippka <ch...@lippka.com>]

Hi Steve,

Am 07.06.2011 15:27, schrieb Steve Loughran:
> [...]
>>
>
> The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just 
> "vanishes". They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend 
> to drift off, go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The 
> turnover/year may be the same, but the way the turnover happens is 
> different.
>
> to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on 
> the projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status 
> through their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the 
> active knowledge goes along with their departure
That are valid concerns. What I like to point out that at this moment I 
count at least 7 Oracle people who want to contribute
as an individual. So I think this is an indication that there is a 
strong interest in the project itself that is not directly bound
to the salary :-)

Regards,
Christian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]

[Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>]

Steve,

In the interest of completeness, please point out that folks from IBM
did join and work on Axis2 which was a complete rewrite from scratch,
got that integrated into other Apache projects like Geronimo.

thanks,
dims

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 03:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM,<ro...@us.ibm.com>  wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
>>>> communities.  Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
>>>> times there is not.  Communities are based on individuals.
>>>
>>> And individuals are often employed by corporations, and are their jobs
>>> sometimes entail contributing to open source communities.  I think we all
>>> understand how this works.
>>>
>>> But do you have any hard numbers, for example, showing a higher
>>> abandonment rate for projects with more corporate assignments?  That
>>> would
>>> be an interesting correlation to show.  Of course, we must also consider
>>> the projects that never came into existence at all, for lack of corporate
>>> sponsorship.  That number is harder to estimate.
>>
>> I can confirm that is is a common enough phenomenon to warrant
>> highlighting in the standard template:
>>
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-reliance-on-salaried-developers
>>
>>> And just because corporate withdrawals are "notorious" does not mean they
>>> are common, or that they are the greatest risk we should consider.  The
>>> Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper were also notorious, but you have a
>>> great risk of death falling down stairs.
>>>
>
> The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just "vanishes".
> They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend to drift off, go
> onto what else interests them, or whatever. The turnover/year may be the
> same, but the way the turnover happens is different.
>
> to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on the
> projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status through
> their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the active
> knowledge goes along with their departure
>
> Examples
>  Axis 1.x: IBM staffers all vanish.
>  Harmony: IBM FTEs all vanish.
>
> I don't think we need any more, given that these show that IBM has a track
> record of doing this. Maybe not your bit of the company, but we outsiders
> can't tell that
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]

[Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>]

On 06/03/2011 03:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM,<ro...@us.ibm.com>  wrote:

>>>
>>> Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
>>> communities.  Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
>>> times there is not.  Communities are based on individuals.
>>
>> And individuals are often employed by corporations, and are their jobs
>> sometimes entail contributing to open source communities.  I think we all
>> understand how this works.
>>
>> But do you have any hard numbers, for example, showing a higher
>> abandonment rate for projects with more corporate assignments?  That would
>> be an interesting correlation to show.  Of course, we must also consider
>> the projects that never came into existence at all, for lack of corporate
>> sponsorship.  That number is harder to estimate.
>
> I can confirm that is is a common enough phenomenon to warrant
> highlighting in the standard template:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-reliance-on-salaried-developers
>
>> And just because corporate withdrawals are "notorious" does not mean they
>> are common, or that they are the greatest risk we should consider.  The
>> Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper were also notorious, but you have a
>> great risk of death falling down stairs.
>>

The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just "vanishes". 
They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend to drift off, 
go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The turnover/year may be 
the same, but the way the turnover happens is different.

to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on 
the projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status 
through their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the 
active knowledge goes along with their departure

Examples
  Axis 1.x: IBM staffers all vanish.
  Harmony: IBM FTEs all vanish.

I don't think we need any more, given that these show that IBM has a 
track record of doing this. Maybe not your bit of the company, but we 
outsiders can't tell that


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24
> PM:
>
>> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
>> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
>> >> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
>> >> do know about it, people are signing on.
>> >
>> > "IBM plans to commit new project members and individual
>> contributors from its global
>> > development team to strengthen the project and ensure its future
>> success." [1]
>>
>> I have two remaining concerns with this statement.
>>
>
> .
> .
> .
>
>>
>> Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
>> communities.  Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
>> times there is not.  Communities are based on individuals.
>
> And individuals are often employed by corporations, and are their jobs
> sometimes entail contributing to open source communities.  I think we all
> understand how this works.
>
> But do you have any hard numbers, for example, showing a higher
> abandonment rate for projects with more corporate assignments?  That would
> be an interesting correlation to show.  Of course, we must also consider
> the projects that never came into existence at all, for lack of corporate
> sponsorship.  That number is harder to estimate.

I can confirm that is is a common enough phenomenon to warrant
highlighting in the standard template:

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-reliance-on-salaried-developers

> And just because corporate withdrawals are "notorious" does not mean they
> are common, or that they are the greatest risk we should consider.  The
> Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper were also notorious, but you have a
> great risk of death falling down stairs.
>
>
> .
> .
> .
>
>> And should IBM choose in the near or far future to divest itself
>> from an OOo community, in the pattern of Harmony, is it willing to
>> make a statement that its employees will not be discouraged from
>> ongoing participation /on their own time/, again if this is their
>> personal interest?
>>
>
> As you know, a requirement for graduation from incubation is that the
> podling demonstrate an "open and diverse community".  The guidelines state
> the one aspect of this requirement as, "there is no single company or
> entity that is vital to the success of the project ".
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community
>
> So I think your own guidelines specify the expected outcome in the case a
> corporate sponsor withdraws.

s/your/our/

> To your other point, IBM has Open Source Participation Guidelines that
> generally permit and encourage employee to participate in open source
> projects.  But there are restrictions and exceptions, to protect IBM, but
> also to protect the open source projects, from IP contamination.  Every
> case is reviewed individually.  You can't make any blanket statement,
> especially to a hypothetical.
>
>
>> So far, this proposal appears to be the effort of two individuals
>> on behalf of two corporations, with some great enthusiam from others.
>> All recognize that any resulting project at the Apache Software
>> Foundation would be the effort of individuals, not companies per say.
>> So these two answers would go a long way to ensure that the long term
>> project health is not beholden to Oracle's absence, or any threat of
>> withdrawal by IBM.
>>
>
> Certainly the proposal was drafted by few.  Now it is being reviewed by
> more.  And I hope the project will have participation by many.,  We're
> moving in the right direction.

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  Full disclosure: ASF Board member and IBM employee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

"William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24 
PM:

> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
> >> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
> >> do know about it, people are signing on.
> > 
> > "IBM plans to commit new project members and individual 
> contributors from its global
> > development team to strengthen the project and ensure its future 
> success." [1]
> 
> I have two remaining concerns with this statement.
> 

.
.
.

> 
> Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
> communities.  Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
> times there is not.  Communities are based on individuals.
>

And individuals are often employed by corporations, and are their jobs 
sometimes entail contributing to open source communities.  I think we all 
understand how this works.

But do you have any hard numbers, for example, showing a higher 
abandonment rate for projects with more corporate assignments?  That would 
be an interesting correlation to show.  Of course, we must also consider 
the projects that never came into existence at all, for lack of corporate 
sponsorship.  That number is harder to estimate. 

And just because corporate withdrawals are "notorious" does not mean they 
are common, or that they are the greatest risk we should consider.  The 
Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper were also notorious, but you have a 
great risk of death falling down stairs.

 
.
.
.
 
> And should IBM choose in the near or far future to divest itself
> from an OOo community, in the pattern of Harmony, is it willing to
> make a statement that its employees will not be discouraged from
> ongoing participation /on their own time/, again if this is their
> personal interest?
> 

As you know, a requirement for graduation from incubation is that the 
podling demonstrate an "open and diverse community".  The guidelines state 
the one aspect of this requirement as, "there is no single company or 
entity that is vital to the success of the project ".

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community

So I think your own guidelines specify the expected outcome in the case a 
corporate sponsor withdraws.

To your other point, IBM has Open Source Participation Guidelines that 
generally permit and encourage employee to participate in open source 
projects.  But there are restrictions and exceptions, to protect IBM, but 
also to protect the open source projects, from IP contamination.  Every 
case is reviewed individually.  You can't make any blanket statement, 
especially to a hypothetical.


> So far, this proposal appears to be the effort of two individuals
> on behalf of two corporations, with some great enthusiam from others.
> All recognize that any resulting project at the Apache Software
> Foundation would be the effort of individuals, not companies per say.
> So these two answers would go a long way to ensure that the long term
> project health is not beholden to Oracle's absence, or any threat of
> withdrawal by IBM.
> 

Certainly the proposal was drafted by few.  Now it is being reviewed by 
more.  And I hope the project will have participation by many.,  We're 
moving in the right direction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 6/2/2011 11:07 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
>> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
>> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
>> do know about it, people are signing on.
> 
> "IBM plans to commit new project members and individual contributors from its global
> development team to strengthen the project and ensure its future success." [1]

I have two remaining concerns with this statement.

The ASF welcomes independent developers and those from commercial
organizations on the same terms, by demonstration of merit and an
apparent long term interest in improving the project.  This is why
I mentioned earlier that it is important for IBM folk to sign up
individually on the wiki roster.

Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
communities.  Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
times there is not.  Communities are based on individuals.

Already, on the part of Oracle, this seems to be a code dump (the
abandonment of code, in spite of whatever help with transition).
I raised the question on another thread; will Oracle inhibit its
interested engineers from participating on their own time, if it
remains their personal interest to participate?

And should IBM choose in the near or far future to divest itself
from an OOo community, in the pattern of Harmony, is it willing to
make a statement that its employees will not be discouraged from
ongoing participation /on their own time/, again if this is their
personal interest?

So far, this proposal appears to be the effort of two individuals
on behalf of two corporations, with some great enthusiam from others.
All recognize that any resulting project at the Apache Software
Foundation would be the effort of individuals, not companies per say.
So these two answers would go a long way to ensure that the long term
project health is not beholden to Oracle's absence, or any threat of
withdrawal by IBM.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>


...

>> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
>> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer and
>> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has never
>> contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall. I'm a bit surprised by this as
>> TDF has now over 200 developers, paid and unpaid and I was under the
>> impression that this number was not deemed to be enough by IBM.
>
> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
> do know about it, people are signing on.


"IBM plans to commit new project members and individual contributors 
from its global development team to strengthen the project and ensure 
its future success." [1]

In an earlier reply to a similar question from me Rob indicated that the 
initial committer list does not include these resources as it might have 
sent the wrong signal to independents and other collaborators.

The proposal was then updated to say "In order to help encourage the 
creation of a broad and diverse project built upon merit, as required of 
an Apache project, we have not loaded the initial committer list with 
contributors from a single company. Our intention is for the initial 
committer list to be representative of the various users of OOo code. " [2]

Ross

[1] http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/34638.wss
[2] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

> 
> To answer Jim's email, I think that while OOo and LibreOffice don't have to
> be competitors, I would not necessarily want to decide why we should split
> development efforts. I 'm sure the Apache Foundation has experience in
> dealing with Free and Open Source Software projects but I don't think it
> make sense to to split communities and give a specific role to each of them.

All I'm saying is that we have options available to us, options
that up until a day or so ago, NO ONE in the OOo/LOo community
had. No one. So let's take some time to look at them and
discuss them ;)

> 
> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer and
> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has never
> contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall. I'm a bit surprised by this as
> TDF has now over 200 developers, paid and unpaid and I was under the
> impression that this number was not deemed to be enough by IBM.

The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
do know about it, people are signing on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

["Jomar Silva (Cuca)" <ho...@gmail.com>]

> One simple example: Imagine the Apache project as the core
> "guts" of OOo, the framework. With TDF working on parts
> that extend and enhance OOo, in a modular fashion, for
> a particular set of end-users... or something like that.

+1

Best,

Jomar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
<ch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think nobody
> wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate
> than pretending the elephant in the room (LibreOffice, the Document
> Foundation) does not exist or does not de facto embody the largest part of
> the OpenOffice community (yes, I know, there are a few exceptions).

Licensing is one of the key reason why many projects find their way to
the ASF.  Any discussion that misses out on that is missing a key part
of the equation.

As to the alleged elephant in the room; I don't see anyone at the ASF
who is pretending that LibreOffice does not exist or the the Document
Foundation does not exist.

Remember: nearly everybody at the ASF heard about this awesome
donation at roughly the same time you did.  As one who was involved in
the legal aspects, I perhaps heard about it a short while before you
did, but not by much.  And there wasn't much I could talk about yet as
it hadn't happened yet.

Now that it has happened, people have reached out, are reaching out,
and will continue to do so.

Meanwhile, I will confirm that we have a Software Grant from Oracle,
and it is the same Software Grant that everybody else signs:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt

Within the limits of what that grant allows us to do, and the founding
principles of the ASF, I welcome cooperation with every entity and
organization that wishes to.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

Reality is what matters. So let's make the best reality possible :-)

On 3 Jun 2011 23:15, "Cor Nouws" <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote:

Hi Rob, all,

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote (02-06-11 21:34)



> If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
> then I suspect this is with a very low level...
I know several people that started with really tiny contributions for
LibreOffice in the past months but just evolved to people contributing
features, more and more clean ups, committing to the repository themselves
and help with checking other patches. Also, people with specific knowledge
of any of the many areas in the huge code base, can mean a lot by just using
their skills for maybe few lines of code.

I hardly new about this process when I was active in the old OpenOffice.org
project. Now in the LibreOffice project I've seen that it is reality, and
what the importance of that approach is.



> And most of those names are making very
> sporadic, but I'm sure very valuable, contributions.

...
Indeed.



> Notably the top 20
> contributors were making 90% of the commits and of those the majority are
>...
Which is not relevant - but of course that percentage is getting lower
regularly with others joining LibreOffice.



> The "halo" of additional developers is important as well.  But their
> effectiveness is entirely...
It is different, as I wrote above.

And I too think it is relevant. Although I read for example this:

Ross Gardler wrote (03-06-11 15:25)

> The incubator does not expect a viable community on the way *in*, it
> only expects a viable community on the way *out*.
>
> We will take a vote on whether to accept this proposal into the
> incubator. That vote, for the majority of people, will not be about
> vague unanswerable questions such as "will it graduate" it will be about
> "is there any *definite* reason to refuse entry to the incubator".
>

The difference is relevant at least for managing expectations. When there
are many contributors for LibreOffice that you may not expect to join an
OpenOffice.org project in Apache.
I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in the
OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to happen.

Regards,
Cor

-- 
Prima office software - niet duur, wél vrij ?!
       http://www.nieuwsteoffice.nl/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


-- 
 - http://nl.libreoffice.org
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gen...

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:25 PM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:
>>
>>> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in
>>> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to
>> happen.
>>>
>>
>> I would like to see this as well, everyone working on a single code base.
>
> That is very easy: instead of starting a fork, join the existing community.
> send patch at libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> if they are good they will be applied, if there are not that good you
> will usually get constructive feedback and many time even help to
> improve them.
>
> I'm looking forward to the fulfillment of your goal of everyone
> working on a single code base, leading by example...

I've said it several times, but haven't (yet) seem to have been able
to strike up a productive conversation: until we have a frank and open
discussion concerning the differences of licenses, I don't see the
above as a possibility.

I have also replied to your post on the steering-discuss mailing list
with a similar request:

http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01055.html

> Norbert

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:25 PM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:
>
>> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in
>> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to
> happen.
>>
>
> I would like to see this as well, everyone working on a single code base.

That is very easy: instead of starting a fork, join the existing community.
send patch at libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org
if they are good they will be applied, if there are not that good you
will usually get constructive feedback and many time even help to
improve them.

I'm looking forward to the fulfillment of your goal of everyone
working on a single code base, leading by example...

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:

> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in 
> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to 
happen.
> 

I would like to see this as well, everyone working on a single code base. 
The is the ideal.  But my support of the current proposal is not 
contingent on the ideal alignment occurring. 

But I think the way forward looks something like this:

1) Determine what is possible, in terms of high-level alignment, the 
general flow graph of permissible contributions that would respect the 
licenses of both communities. 

2) Based on that graph, work out, within the projects, what code, 
infrastructure and process accommodations are necessary in both 
communities to facilitate these contribution flows.

3) Perhaps agree to a Memorandum Of Understanding or similar between the 
two foundations to express the common understanding of how 
#1 and #2 work, as well as our mutual commitments to endeavor to make them 
work.

But we really need to figure out #1 first, thus the questionnaire I sent 
out.

Regards,

-Rob


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl>]

Hi Rob, all,

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote (02-06-11 21:34)

> If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
> then I suspect this is with a very low level of engagement.

I know several people that started with really tiny contributions for 
LibreOffice in the past months but just evolved to people contributing 
features, more and more clean ups, committing to the repository 
themselves and help with checking other patches. Also, people with 
specific knowledge of any of the many areas in the huge code base, can 
mean a lot by just using their skills for maybe few lines of code.

I hardly new about this process when I was active in the old 
OpenOffice.org project. Now in the LibreOffice project I've seen that it 
is reality, and what the importance of that approach is.

> And most of those names are making very
> sporadic, but I'm sure very valuable, contributions.

Indeed.

> Notably the top 20
> contributors were making 90% of the commits and of those the majority are
> Novell employees.

Which is not relevant - but of course that percentage is getting lower 
regularly with others joining LibreOffice.

> The "halo" of additional developers is important as well.  But their
> effectiveness is entirely dependent on the ability of the core committers
> to review and integrate their work.  So we need to grow the project from
> the inside out.  That's my opinion, in any case.  But LO is really no
> different.

It is different, as I wrote above.

And I too think it is relevant. Although I read for example this:

Ross Gardler wrote (03-06-11 15:25)
> The incubator does not expect a viable community on the way *in*, it
> only expects a viable community on the way *out*.
>
> We will take a vote on whether to accept this proposal into the
> incubator. That vote, for the majority of people, will not be about
> vague unanswerable questions such as "will it graduate" it will be about
> "is there any *definite* reason to refuse entry to the incubator".

The difference is relevant at least for managing expectations. When 
there are many contributors for LibreOffice that you may not expect to 
join an OpenOffice.org project in Apache.
I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in 
the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to happen.

Regards,
Cor

-- 
Prima office software - niet duur, wél vrij ?!
         http://www.nieuwsteoffice.nl/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


-- 
  - 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: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[dsh <da...@googlemail.com>]

Excellent Rob! FYI Celix [1] entered the inucbator with just one
single initial committer and thus I'd say there's was no point at any
time requiring hundreds of developers backing the proposal.

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/celix.html

Cheers
Daniel

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:12 AM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 05:45:57 PM:
>
>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
>> >> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even
> think
>> >> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
>> >> analytics at this point in time. There is a saying in this regards "I
>> >> only believe in statistics that I doctored myself" and that's
>> >> certainly one reason why I feel suspicious about these kind of
>> >> analysis :)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Questionable?  If only 54 people have checked in code in the last 6
>> > months, then no amount of magic with source code indentation is going
> to
>> > get you to 400 developers.  If you disagree, I'd like to see the magic
> you
>> > can do with the tab key!
>>
>> Rob: does this need to continue?
>>
>
> If we're all now satisfied of the plausibility of growing a sufficiently
> large developer base this code base, and no one is still maintaining that
> we need hundreds of developers, then I think we're done.
>
> -Rob
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 05:45:57 PM:

 
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> >> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even 
think
> >> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
> >> analytics at this point in time. There is a saying in this regards "I
> >> only believe in statistics that I doctored myself" and that's
> >> certainly one reason why I feel suspicious about these kind of
> >> analysis :)
> >>
> >
> > Questionable?  If only 54 people have checked in code in the last 6
> > months, then no amount of magic with source code indentation is going 
to
> > get you to 400 developers.  If you disagree, I'd like to see the magic 
you
> > can do with the tab key!
> 
> Rob: does this need to continue?
> 

If we're all now satisfied of the plausibility of growing a sufficiently 
large developer base this code base, and no one is still maintaining that 
we need hundreds of developers, then I think we're done.

-Rob


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
>>
>> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
>> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
>> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
>> analytics at this point in time. There is a saying in this regards "I
>> only believe in statistics that I doctored myself" and that's
>> certainly one reason why I feel suspicious about these kind of
>> analysis :)
>>
>
> Questionable?  If only 54 people have checked in code in the last 6
> months, then no amount of magic with source code indentation is going to
> get you to 400 developers.  If you disagree, I'd like to see the magic you
> can do with the tab key!

Rob: does this need to continue?

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[dsh <da...@googlemail.com>]

Sorry no tab keys involved ... I'd like to indent with spaces :D :D

Cheers
Daniel

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:55 PM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
>>
>> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
>> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
>> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
>> analytics at this point in time. There is a saying in this regards "I
>> only believe in statistics that I doctored myself" and that's
>> certainly one reason why I feel suspicious about these kind of
>> analysis :)
>>
>
> Questionable?  If only 54 people have checked in code in the last 6
> months, then no amount of magic with source code indentation is going to
> get you to 400 developers.  If you disagree, I'd like to see the magic you
> can do with the tab key!
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Blondie's Parallel Lines... numerically ...

[dsh <da...@googlemail.com>]

+1

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
> divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those numbers
> are too small."
>
> Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
>
> -g
> On Jun 3, 2011 1:22 AM, "Norbert Thiebaud" <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07 PM, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Michael Meeks <mi...@novell.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -    $scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
>>>> +    $scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03'
>>>>$outdir/all-lo.log
>>>>
>>>>    Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch
>>>> contributed in the last six months like this:
>>>>
>>>> Employers with the most hackers (total 214)
>>>> (Unknown)                  138 (64.5%)
>>>> Oracle                      45 (21.0%)
>>>> Novell                      18 (8.4%)
>>>> Known contributors           7 (3.3%)
>>>> Canonical                    4 (1.9%)
>>>> Redhat                       2 (0.9%)
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I'm reading this correctly, you're quoting the Oracle developers as
>>> being contributors to LibreOffice?  That is not particularly useful for
>>> project planning purposes.  Perhaps the core count for Oracle is closer
> to
>>> the mark, if we extract only that out.
>>
>> You are not reading this correctly, but more importantly the point is
>> that this contradict your claim earlier:
>>
>> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:34 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>> When I check the commit logs for LibreOffice and apply the Apache
>>> criteria for what defines an "active" participant (a commit within
>>> the last 6 months), I see only 54 names.
>>
>> Everybody is entitled to their own opinions... but not their own facts.
>>
>> Norbert
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Blondie's Parallel Lines... numerically ...

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:13 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
> divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those numbers
> are too small."
> 
> Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
> 

Agreed... if we want to find areas to differ and argue over,
I'm sure we can do much better than that. :)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Meta-question: How many committers on a proposal are enough?

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

Here's the dilemma of 'question 2' as I see it.

Many podlings launch here with a very small group. If they do a good
job of marketing, if the podling is an itch that a lot of people want
to scratch, then more and more people show up, and all is well.

However, and it's a pretty big however, most podlings are starting
with a much smaller and more tractable quantity of code.

So I can see why people are diffident about approving the podling
without some forward visibility to critical mass.

At the same time, it's very hard to predict the situation. We know it
won't be 'what if we threw a party and no one came,' because we expect
IBM to show up. We don't know who else will turn up. The decisions
people have made over the last year or so were conditioned by the
particulars, and an Apache podling would be a rather significant
change to the particulars.






On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 AM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:
>
>>
>> There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
>> should evaluate a proposal?
>>
>> 1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"
>>
>> I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate criterion.
>>
>> 2. "Given the vast size of the codebase, is there any chance of
>> building a large enough group to maintain and enhance it."
>>
>> I fear that this involves the application of a crystal ball, but
>> others may disagree.
>>
>> 3. "How many people are detectable on the two existing projects, as
>> this will teach us something about (2)"
>>
>> No. It won't. Others on this thread of perfectly eloquently explained
> why.
>>
>> So, please make some new threads with some new subjects if you want to
>> argue my view here or any of the substantive questions.
>>
>
> Done.
>
> I think these are good questions.  But can you recommend a plausible way
> to answer your question #1 without at least estimating an answer for
> question #2?
>
> And I'd alter your question #3.  The better question, IMHO, is not "how
> many people are detectable".  I don't think anyone has seriously advocated
> that.  But "how many people are active" or "how many people are
> responsible for 90% of the contributions" or similar questions are
> indicative.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Meta-question: How many committers on a proposal are enough?

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 03/06/2011 13:35, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Benson Margulies<bi...@gmail.com>  wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:
>
>>
>> There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
>> should evaluate a proposal?
>>
>> 1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"
>>
>> I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate criterion.
>>
>> 2. "Given the vast size of the codebase, is there any chance of
>> building a large enough group to maintain and enhance it."
>>
>> I fear that this involves the application of a crystal ball, but
>> others may disagree.
>>
>> 3. "How many people are detectable on the two existing projects, as
>> this will teach us something about (2)"
>>
>> No. It won't. Others on this thread of perfectly eloquently explained
> why.
>>
>> So, please make some new threads with some new subjects if you want to
>> argue my view here or any of the substantive questions.
>>
>
> Done.
>
> I think these are good questions.  But can you recommend a plausible way
> to answer your question #1 without at least estimating an answer for
> question #2?

I can answer that very simply.

The incubator does not expect a viable community on the way *in*, it 
only expects a viable community on the way *out*.

We will take a vote on whether to accept this proposal into the 
incubator. That vote, for the majority of people, will not be about 
vague unanswerable questions such as "will it graduate" it will be about 
"is there any *definite* reason to refuse entry to the incubator".

We want as many interested parties as possible on this proposal but 
there will be plenty of time in the incubator to welcome in others. If 
people don't come then the project will not graduate and the code is 
left in a better IP state than before - we can't lose. Simple as that.

Lets not waste time on the crystal ball gazing and arguments over whose 
crystal ball is more accurate. Lets instead focus on the important 
issues of of trademarks, IP management, infrastructure and initial 
committer list.

Ross

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Meta-question: How many committers on a proposal are enough?

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:

> 
> There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
> should evaluate a proposal?
> 
> 1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"
> 
> I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate criterion.
> 
> 2. "Given the vast size of the codebase, is there any chance of
> building a large enough group to maintain and enhance it."
> 
> I fear that this involves the application of a crystal ball, but
> others may disagree.
> 
> 3. "How many people are detectable on the two existing projects, as
> this will teach us something about (2)"
> 
> No. It won't. Others on this thread of perfectly eloquently explained 
why.
> 
> So, please make some new threads with some new subjects if you want to
> argue my view here or any of the substantive questions.
> 

Done.

I think these are good questions.  But can you recommend a plausible way 
to answer your question #1 without at least estimating an answer for 
question #2? 

And I'd alter your question #3.  The better question, IMHO, is not "how 
many people are detectable".  I don't think anyone has seriously advocated 
that.  But "how many people are active" or "how many people are 
responsible for 90% of the contributions" or similar questions are 
indicative. 

Regards,

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines... numerically ...

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

I join the chorus of people trying to stop this chorus before it gets
from 49 bottles of beer on the wall to 48.

There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
should evaluate a proposal?

1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"

I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate criterion.

2. "Given the vast size of the codebase, is there any chance of
building a large enough group to maintain and enhance it."

I fear that this involves the application of a crystal ball, but
others may disagree.

3. "How many people are detectable on the two existing projects, as
this will teach us something about (2)"

No. It won't. Others on this thread of perfectly eloquently explained why.

So, please make some new threads with some new subjects if you want to
argue my view here or any of the substantive questions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines... numerically ...

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 02:13:43 AM:

> 
> I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
> divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those 
numbers
> are too small."
> 

I agree, especially if the numbers are not relevant to the question at 
hand.

It was brought up, and I think it is a legitimate point, whether the 
proposed project will have enough developers to sustain it.  Numbers were 
tossed around about the hundreds of developers that LibreOffice claims to 
have.  But there is certainly a difference between:

Dev 1:  10,000 units of code
Dev 2:  1 unit of code
Dev 2:  1 unit of code
.
.
.
Dev 100: 1 unit of code

and:

Dev 1:  2,501 units of code
Dev 2:  2,501 units of code
Dev 3:  2,500 units of code
Dev 4:  2,500 units of code

Ignore for the moment that any given metric unit here can be manipulated. 
Think of this in the abstract.  Different distributions follow from 
different community structures, based on depth of talent, the difficulty 
of the code base, the number of corporate sponsored developers, etc.

To have an estimate for the number of developers necessary to create an 
Apache OpenOffice community, knowing the total number of developers on 
another project is irrelevant.  If there is a long tail of 1-time patch 
submitters, that may be useful for community development, encouraging new 
stronger developers who might impact the project more down the road, etc. 
But it doesn't really answer the question of what is *necessary* to get 
the project running.

That is why my estimate looked at how many developers were responsible for 
90% of the code contributions in the last 6 months.  That is a more robust 
estimator, less skewed by the distribution.  It is a better indication, I 
think, for this purpose.

So if our LibreOffice colleagues have an easy way of deriving this number, 
I think it would be very useful to have.  I'd certainly be appreciative if 
they could calc this, if not too much trouble.

Regards,

-Rob


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines... numerically ...

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those numbers
are too small."

Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.

-g
On Jun 3, 2011 1:22 AM, "Norbert Thiebaud" <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07 PM, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Michael Meeks <mi...@novell.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> -    $scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
>>> +    $scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03'
>>>$outdir/all-lo.log
>>>
>>>    Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch
>>> contributed in the last six months like this:
>>>
>>> Employers with the most hackers (total 214)
>>> (Unknown)                  138 (64.5%)
>>> Oracle                      45 (21.0%)
>>> Novell                      18 (8.4%)
>>> Known contributors           7 (3.3%)
>>> Canonical                    4 (1.9%)
>>> Redhat                       2 (0.9%)
>>>
>>
>> If I'm reading this correctly, you're quoting the Oracle developers as
>> being contributors to LibreOffice?  That is not particularly useful for
>> project planning purposes.  Perhaps the core count for Oracle is closer
to
>> the mark, if we extract only that out.
>
> You are not reading this correctly, but more importantly the point is
> that this contradict your claim earlier:
>
> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:34 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>> When I check the commit logs for LibreOffice and apply the Apache
>> criteria for what defines an "active" participant (a commit within
>> the last 6 months), I see only 54 names.
>
> Everybody is entitled to their own opinions... but not their own facts.
>
> Norbert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines... numerically ...

[Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07 PM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Michael Meeks <mi...@novell.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:
>
>>
>> -    $scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
>> +    $scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03'
>>$outdir/all-lo.log
>>
>>    Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch
>> contributed in the last six months like this:
>>
>> Employers with the most hackers (total 214)
>> (Unknown)                  138 (64.5%)
>> Oracle                      45 (21.0%)
>> Novell                      18 (8.4%)
>> Known contributors           7 (3.3%)
>> Canonical                    4 (1.9%)
>> Redhat                       2 (0.9%)
>>
>
> If I'm reading this correctly, you're quoting the Oracle developers as
> being contributors to LibreOffice?  That is not particularly useful for
> project planning purposes.  Perhaps the core count for Oracle is closer to
> the mark, if we extract only that out.

You are not reading this correctly, but more importantly the point is
that this contradict your claim earlier:

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:34 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> When I check the commit logs for LibreOffice and apply the Apache
> criteria for what defines an "active" participant (a commit within
> the last 6 months), I see only 54 names.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions... but not their own facts.

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines... numerically ...

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Michael Meeks <mi...@novell.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:

> 
> -    $scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
> +    $scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03' 
>$outdir/all-lo.log
> 
>    Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch
> contributed in the last six months like this:
> 
> Employers with the most hackers (total 214)
> (Unknown)                  138 (64.5%)
> Oracle                      45 (21.0%)
> Novell                      18 (8.4%)
> Known contributors           7 (3.3%)
> Canonical                    4 (1.9%)
> Redhat                       2 (0.9%)
> 

If I'm reading this correctly, you're quoting the Oracle developers as 
being contributors to LibreOffice?  That is not particularly useful for 
project planning purposes.  Perhaps the core count for Oracle is closer to 
the mark, if we extract only that out. 

In any case, the number I derived earlier (20 core developers) was not 
disputed by Charles.  It is consistent with what I know was required to 
develop Symphony.  And matches what was recently quoted in a Document 
Foundation Blog post, where it talked about "20 core developers working on 
features, fixes, and packaging the software":

http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/05/23/the-document-foundation-announces-the-members-of-the-engineering-steering-committee/


-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines... numerically ...

[Michael Meeks <mi...@novell.com>]

So,

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:55 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Questionable?  If only 54 people have checked in code in the last 6 
> months, then no amount of magic with source code indentation is going to 
> get you to 400 developers.  If you disagree, I'd like to see the magic you 
> can do with the tab key!

	While I agree that this is increasingly irrelevant; there is an
important issue of competence and accuracy raised here that may be
generally interesting; I would point out that Rob's contention:

On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:34 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> When I check the commit logs for LibreOffice and apply the Apache
> criteria for what defines an "active" participant (a commit within
> the last 6 months), I see only 54 names.

	Is almost certainly based on a basic misunderstand of how the
LibreOffice code is structured - across multiple git repositories. If
you count just 'bootstrap' (that includes some configure.in, dmake and
some scripts[1]) you might get that - but that is for a tiny fraction of
the code. Assuming your definition of 'active' is indeed that any commit
within the last six months qualifies - then we track those numbers too.

	To me it is sad to, so confidently, propagate these clearly
contradictory numbers - without first privately flagging an error in our
published code for counting the stats that Cedric[2] maintains and is
based on Jonathan Corbett's excellent gitdm. Perhaps you found one ?
Clearly we don't pull these numbers from a hat weekly :-)

	While it is only peripherally relevant to the matter at hand, the stats
I generated, after applying a mini patch to our 'log-data':

-    $scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
+    $scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03' >$outdir/all-lo.log

	Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch
contributed in the last six months like this:

Employers with the most hackers (total 214)
(Unknown)                  138 (64.5%)
Oracle                      45 (21.0%)
Novell                      18 (8.4%)
Known contributors           7 (3.3%)
Canonical                    4 (1.9%)
Redhat                       2 (0.9%)

	And in the last ~9 months (since LIBREOFFICE_CREATE) - our more normal
datum - we have:

Employers with the most hackers (total 283)
(Unknown)                  194 (68.6%)
Oracle                      54 (19.1%)
Novell                      19 (6.7%)
Known contributors          10 (3.5%)
Canonical                    4 (1.4%)
Redhat                       2 (0.7%)

	Which we try to graph month by month (clearly far fewer are active each
month). The 200 number we hear is an approximation of the "entirely new
contributors with committed code since we started". The 'Known
contributors' are mostly volunteers too. 200 seems a good enough, round
representation of 283 hackers[3] for me :-)

	Casting aspersions on the value and size of volunteers input I fully
expect (personally I value lots of diverse small changes from
contributors myself), but the quantification I didn't.

	Our gitdm setup, affiliation database and patches are here:

	http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~cbosdo/gitdm-lo-config/

	Perhaps there are indeed some factor-of-four bugs in it, if so we'd
love to know, it is our intention to print reasonably accurate stats.
Patches appreciated, this is Free Software right ;-)

	All the best,

		Michael.

[1] - hint: ./autogen.sh and run download to get the rest
[2] - http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr/
[3] - this should not include the ~200 translators helping out TDF
      either; we don't count .sdf or .po files
-- 
 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: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:

> 
> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
> analytics at this point in time. There is a saying in this regards "I
> only believe in statistics that I doctored myself" and that's
> certainly one reason why I feel suspicious about these kind of
> analysis :)
> 

Questionable?  If only 54 people have checked in code in the last 6 
months, then no amount of magic with source code indentation is going to 
get you to 400 developers.  If you disagree, I'd like to see the magic you 
can do with the tab key!

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[dsh <da...@googlemail.com>]

Rob,

IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
analytics at this point in time. There is a saying in this regards "I
only believe in statistics that I doctored myself" and that's
certainly one reason why I feel suspicious about these kind of
analysis :)

Cheers
Daniel

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 04:05:38 PM:
>
>>
>> IMHO you should not discuss or question the LO community size
>> respective its vitality in any way at this place. That's certainly not
>> the scope of the OpenOffice Apache incubation proposal anyway. The
>
> I disagree.  The question was raised on the list whether this project was
> on track to have a sufficient number of developers to allow this project
> to thrive.  In my analysis I commented on two highly relevant comparable
> projects, estimating how many core developers they have.  IMHO, this is
> **highly** relevant.
>
> If you or anyone else would like to propose a different analysis leading
> to a different number, then I'd welcome as well.
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 04:05:38 PM:

> 
> IMHO you should not discuss or question the LO community size
> respective its vitality in any way at this place. That's certainly not
> the scope of the OpenOffice Apache incubation proposal anyway. The

I disagree.  The question was raised on the list whether this project was 
on track to have a sufficient number of developers to allow this project 
to thrive.  In my analysis I commented on two highly relevant comparable 
projects, estimating how many core developers they have.  IMHO, this is 
**highly** relevant.

If you or anyone else would like to propose a different analysis leading 
to a different number, then I'd welcome as well.

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

Oh, totally agree. It is useful as a rough measure, but completely
ignores many other forms of contribution.

*shrug*

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:16, dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Of course I now some more magic than just re-indent a codebase... that
> would be to easy to spot wouldn't it ;)
>
> Seriously: I doubt some code analysis or commit log analysis practices
> especially if the goal would be to make an assertion about someones
> "performance". IMHO that leaves a bad taste in an OSS environment and
> is probably counter productive and it's probably a dead end in a
> commercial environment if you want to "performance measure" people
> that way.
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:05, dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>...
>>> Final note on commit log analysis - if that's a criterion how to
>>> define an active ASF "participant" my most active times are certainly
>>> pretty dated but of course I would know how to teak commit logs to
>>> make me look more active if I'd ever like to go down that road ;)
>>
>> Dude. Reindent the codebase. That does *wonders* for the amount of
>> code that you've "worked on" in a project.
>>
>> :-D :-D
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>
>> ps. we have a couple points in the Apache Subversion history were that
>> effectively happened. A couple developers now have a seemingly huge
>> level of contribution over the entire codebase. hehehe....
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 02/06/2011 21:16, dsh wrote:
> Of course I now some more magic than just re-indent a codebase... that
> would be to easy to spot wouldn't it ;)

Indeed, I inadvertently found what I believe to be the best approach. 
Commit an svn:props  change to a template that is an svn:external in 30+ 
of ASF projects, all of a sudden places like OhLoh love you ;-)

(Now lets get back to figuring out how to make this proposal work here 
at the ASF, I don't care how big anyone's dad is I care about this 
proposal to the ASF incubator)

Ross

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[dsh <da...@googlemail.com>]

Of course I now some more magic than just re-indent a codebase... that
would be to easy to spot wouldn't it ;)

Seriously: I doubt some code analysis or commit log analysis practices
especially if the goal would be to make an assertion about someones
"performance". IMHO that leaves a bad taste in an OSS environment and
is probably counter productive and it's probably a dead end in a
commercial environment if you want to "performance measure" people
that way.

Cheers
Daniel

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:05, dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>...
>> Final note on commit log analysis - if that's a criterion how to
>> define an active ASF "participant" my most active times are certainly
>> pretty dated but of course I would know how to teak commit logs to
>> make me look more active if I'd ever like to go down that road ;)
>
> Dude. Reindent the codebase. That does *wonders* for the amount of
> code that you've "worked on" in a project.
>
> :-D :-D
>
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> ps. we have a couple points in the Apache Subversion history were that
> effectively happened. A couple developers now have a seemingly huge
> level of contribution over the entire codebase. hehehe....
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:05, dsh <da...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>...
> Final note on commit log analysis - if that's a criterion how to
> define an active ASF "participant" my most active times are certainly
> pretty dated but of course I would know how to teak commit logs to
> make me look more active if I'd ever like to go down that road ;)

Dude. Reindent the codebase. That does *wonders* for the amount of
code that you've "worked on" in a project.

:-D :-D


Cheers,
-g

ps. we have a couple points in the Apache Subversion history were that
effectively happened. A couple developers now have a seemingly huge
level of contribution over the entire codebase. hehehe....

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[dsh <da...@googlemail.com>]

Rob,

IMHO you should not discuss or question the LO community size
respective its vitality in any way at this place. That's certainly not
the scope of the OpenOffice Apache incubation proposal anyway. The
goal of the proposal as I understand it is to build a vital community
around it at the ASF and that's it. A 2nd goal that has been discussed
as I understand it from the various discussion could be attracting LO
developers to contribute to the incubating OO project as well. From my
experience that means that you will have more than 20 active
committers and a few more contributors in the very beginning
especially if the proposal to be incubated has a certain visibility in
the public. Over time as the project matures the amount of active
committers may decline a bit but if you'll manage to setup a vital
community there will always be a solid core of active committers.

Besides that I am sure you probably did your own community analysis
and pedigree review of the LO community per IBM-internal processes but
as I said that shouldn't be neither the scope of this discussion nor
of the incubator proposal itself.

Final note on commit log analysis - if that's a criterion how to
define an active ASF "participant" my most active times are certainly
pretty dated but of course I would know how to teak commit logs to
make me look more active if I'd ever like to go down that road ;)

Cheers
Daniel

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM,  <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> charles.h.schulz@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
>
>> No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
> never
>> done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
> us
>> have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm
>> questioning is the ability to have two projects, OpenOffice and
> LibreOffice,
>> with so much overlap and only a vaguely defined reason to have two
> distinct
>> projects (the reason being, that some contributors -IBM- might prefer
> the
>> Apache licensing). What I'm concerned is the fuzziness around the
> developers
>> who would contribute to the Openoffice.org codebase. For someone who has
>> repeatedly explained that the LibreOffice developers were not that many,
> I
>> think that betting on a sustainable OpenOffice.org project here is a
> major
>> leap of faith.
>>
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> Maybe this will make it a little more plausible.
>
> As you know IBM develops Lotus Symphony, which is essentially a fork of
> OpenOffice.  IBM has experience in how many developers are required to
> code, test, translate, document, support, etc., a project of this size.
> We've been doing it for several years.  It does not require 400
> developers.  It does not require 200 developers.  It does not require 100
> or even 50 developers.  If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
> then I suspect this is with a very low level of engagement.
>
> When I check the commit logs for LibreOffice and apply the Apache criteria
> for what defines an "active" participant (a commit within the last 6
> months), I see only 54 names.  And most of those names are making very
> sporadic, but I'm sure very valuable, contributions.  Notably the top 20
> contributors were making 90% of the commits and of those the majority are
> Novell employees.
>
> So it is clear that even with LO, a small number of core developers, even
> just 20, do almost all the core coding. This observation is consistent
> with what I know about the development of Symphony.
>
> So I believe that a reasonable goal for Apache OpenOffice, for graduation
> from incubation, is to have a set of at least 20 active committers.  That
> should be sufficient, as a bare minimum, to be the developer nucleus of a
> respectable project.
>
> Now is it plausible to get to that number?  I think so.  But let's not set
> some bogus target of 400 developers or whatever.  There is no intent to
> dump the code with no developers.  But I don't think we want to crowd
> source the project either.  I think we want a core group of dedicated
> committers who can facilitate the review and integration of patches from a
> larger number of less-engaged developers.  That is the kind of
> distribution I think we'll want.  But our target metric should be the
> around active committers.
>
> The "halo" of additional developers is important as well.  But their
> effectiveness is entirely dependent on the ability of the core committers
> to review and integrate their work.  So we need to grow the project from
> the inside out.  That's my opinion, in any case.  But LO is really no
> different.  Its core is developers transplanted from the Novell Edition of
> OpenOffice.  Surely, there is nothing that prevents other companies with
> OpenOffice forks from doing exactly the same thing.
>
>> I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think
> nobody
>> wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate
>> than pretending the elephant in the room (LibreOffice, the Document
>> Foundation) does not exist or does not de facto embody the largest part
> of
>> the OpenOffice community (yes, I know, there are a few exceptions).
>>
>
> Please, Charles, stop saying that anyone is saying that LibreOffice does
> not exist.  You are here, on the Apache list, at the invitation of Apache.
>  I'm happy to stipulate that you exist, I exist, OpenOffice.org exists,
> Apache exists and that TDF/LO exists.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 15:48, Charles-H. Schulz
<ch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>...
> Well, would you be happy with the second part of the sentence you're
> alluding to? To repeat it, LibreOffice and the Document Foundation embody de
> facto most of the OpenOffice.org community, and even beyond.

I certainly would agree with that. I'm just not sure of its relevance
to the proposal before the Incubator? Maybe I lost some context
somewhere...

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

["Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>]

Rob,

2011/6/2 <ro...@us.ibm.com>

> charles.h.schulz@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
>
> > No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
> never
> > done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
> us
> > have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm
> > questioning is the ability to have two projects, OpenOffice and
> LibreOffice,
> > with so much overlap and only a vaguely defined reason to have two
> distinct
> > projects (the reason being, that some contributors -IBM- might prefer
> the
> > Apache licensing). What I'm concerned is the fuzziness around the
> developers
> > who would contribute to the Openoffice.org codebase. For someone who has
> > repeatedly explained that the LibreOffice developers were not that many,
> I
> > think that betting on a sustainable OpenOffice.org project here is a
> major
> > leap of faith.
> >
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> Maybe this will make it a little more plausible.
>
> As you know IBM develops Lotus Symphony, which is essentially a fork of
> OpenOffice.  IBM has experience in how many developers are required to
> code, test, translate, document, support, etc., a project of this size.
> We've been doing it for several years.  It does not require 400
> developers.  It does not require 200 developers.  It does not require 100
> or even 50 developers.  If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
> then I suspect this is with a very low level of engagement.
>

There is a diversity of profiles, obviously, and we can agree that this
diversity is usually found in healthy communities.



>
> When I check the commit logs for LibreOffice and apply the Apache criteria
> for what defines an "active" participant (a commit within the last 6
> months), I see only 54 names.  And most of those names are making very
> sporadic, but I'm sure very valuable, contributions.  Notably the top 20
> contributors were making 90% of the commits and of those the majority are
> Novell employees.
>

So we we may disagree on the metrics (but that's not really crucial for the
sake of the argument); but I'm not saying that LibreOffice requires 200 or
400 developers. I'm only pointing out the difference of treatment between a
project that exists and runs, and a project that has stopped to exist (and
has no more developers until now).


>
> So it is clear that even with LO, a small number of core developers, even
> just 20, do almost all the core coding. This observation is consistent
> with what I know about the development of Symphony.
>

I'm not surprised by these numbers.


>
> So I believe that a reasonable goal for Apache OpenOffice, for graduation
> from incubation, is to have a set of at least 20 active committers.  That
> should be sufficient, as a bare minimum, to be the developer nucleus of a
> respectable project.
>


Certainly.


>
> Now is it plausible to get to that number?  I think so.  But let's not set
> some bogus target of 400 developers or whatever.


I'm not setting that target, again, I'm just pointing out the fuzziness
around their existence.



>  There is no intent to
> dump the code with no developers.  But I don't think we want to crowd
> source the project either.  I think we want a core group of dedicated
> committers who can facilitate the review and integration of patches from a
> larger number of less-engaged developers.  That is the kind of
> distribution I think we'll want.  But our target metric should be the
> around active committers.
>
> The "halo" of additional developers is important as well.  But their
> effectiveness is entirely dependent on the ability of the core committers
> to review and integrate their work.  So we need to grow the project from
> the inside out.  That's my opinion, in any case.  But LO is really no
> different.  Its core is developers transplanted from the Novell Edition of
> OpenOffice.  Surely, there is nothing that prevents other companies with
> OpenOffice forks from doing exactly the same thing.
>
> > I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think
> nobody
> > wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate
> > than pretending the elephant in the room (LibreOffice, the Document
> > Foundation) does not exist or does not de facto embody the largest part
> of
> > the OpenOffice community (yes, I know, there are a few exceptions).
> >
>
> Please, Charles, stop saying that anyone is saying that LibreOffice does
> not exist.  You are here, on the Apache list, at the invitation of Apache.
>  I'm happy to stipulate that you exist, I exist, OpenOffice.org exists,
> Apache exists and that TDF/LO exists.
>


Well, would you be happy with the second part of the sentence you're
alluding to? To repeat it, LibreOffice and the Document Foundation embody de
facto most of the OpenOffice.org community, and even beyond.

Best,
Charles.


>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

charles.h.schulz@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:

> No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will 
never
> done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of 
us
> have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm
> questioning is the ability to have two projects, OpenOffice and 
LibreOffice,
> with so much overlap and only a vaguely defined reason to have two 
distinct
> projects (the reason being, that some contributors -IBM- might prefer 
the
> Apache licensing). What I'm concerned is the fuzziness around the 
developers
> who would contribute to the Openoffice.org codebase. For someone who has
> repeatedly explained that the LibreOffice developers were not that many, 
I
> think that betting on a sustainable OpenOffice.org project here is a 
major
> leap of faith.
> 

Hi Charles,

Maybe this will make it a little more plausible. 

As you know IBM develops Lotus Symphony, which is essentially a fork of 
OpenOffice.  IBM has experience in how many developers are required to 
code, test, translate, document, support, etc., a project of this size. 
We've been doing it for several years.  It does not require 400 
developers.  It does not require 200 developers.  It does not require 100 
or even 50 developers.  If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO 
then I suspect this is with a very low level of engagement. 

When I check the commit logs for LibreOffice and apply the Apache criteria 
for what defines an "active" participant (a commit within the last 6 
months), I see only 54 names.  And most of those names are making very 
sporadic, but I'm sure very valuable, contributions.  Notably the top 20 
contributors were making 90% of the commits and of those the majority are 
Novell employees.

So it is clear that even with LO, a small number of core developers, even 
just 20, do almost all the core coding. This observation is consistent 
with what I know about the development of Symphony.

So I believe that a reasonable goal for Apache OpenOffice, for graduation 
from incubation, is to have a set of at least 20 active committers.  That 
should be sufficient, as a bare minimum, to be the developer nucleus of a 
respectable project.

Now is it plausible to get to that number?  I think so.  But let's not set 
some bogus target of 400 developers or whatever.  There is no intent to 
dump the code with no developers.  But I don't think we want to crowd 
source the project either.  I think we want a core group of dedicated 
committers who can facilitate the review and integration of patches from a 
larger number of less-engaged developers.  That is the kind of 
distribution I think we'll want.  But our target metric should be the 
around active committers. 

The "halo" of additional developers is important as well.  But their 
effectiveness is entirely dependent on the ability of the core committers 
to review and integrate their work.  So we need to grow the project from 
the inside out.  That's my opinion, in any case.  But LO is really no 
different.  Its core is developers transplanted from the Novell Edition of 
OpenOffice.  Surely, there is nothing that prevents other companies with 
OpenOffice forks from doing exactly the same thing.

> I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think 
nobody
> wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate
> than pretending the elephant in the room (LibreOffice, the Document
> Foundation) does not exist or does not de facto embody the largest part 
of
> the OpenOffice community (yes, I know, there are a few exceptions).
> 

Please, Charles, stop saying that anyone is saying that LibreOffice does 
not exist.  You are here, on the Apache list, at the invitation of Apache. 
 I'm happy to stipulate that you exist, I exist, OpenOffice.org exists, 
Apache exists and that TDF/LO exists.

Regards,

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

["Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hello Rob,

2011/6/2 <ro...@us.ibm.com>

> charles.h.schulz@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:
>
> > I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> > project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
> and
> > Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has
> never
> > contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall. I'm a bit surprised by this
> as
> > TDF has now over 200 developers, paid and unpaid and I was under the
> > impression that this number was not deemed to be enough by IBM.
> >
>
> Charles,  You should be looking at the wiki version of the proposal, which
> is updated as additional people sign up and add their name:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal
>
> If you are seeing only two names then it sounds like you are looking at
> the ODT version of the proposal that was initially posted and then pasted
> into the wiki.
>

No, I was saying that on the list I was seeing only two names who were
developers. But the list grew a bit in the same time.



>
> But since this is around the third time today that I've seen LibreOffice
> members question my credentials, I'd like to gently remind the LibreOffice
> guests on this list that my name being near the top of the proposed
> committer list is merely expressing a chronological fact.  I was one of
> the first individuals to sign up.  Nothing more. It does not mean that
> I've been picked for any special distinction or that have any special
> prerogatives in this project.
>
> But since you question it, I'll mention briefly my bona fides:
>



No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will never
done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of us
have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm
questioning is the ability to have two projects, OpenOffice and LibreOffice,
with so much overlap and only a vaguely defined reason to have two distinct
projects (the reason being, that some contributors -IBM- might prefer the
Apache licensing). What I'm concerned is the fuzziness around the developers
who would contribute to the Openoffice.org codebase. For someone who has
repeatedly explained that the LibreOffice developers were not that many, I
think that betting on a sustainable OpenOffice.org project here is a major
leap of faith.

I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think nobody
wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate
than pretending the elephant in the room (LibreOffice, the Document
Foundation) does not exist or does not de facto embody the largest part of
the OpenOffice community (yes, I know, there are a few exceptions).

Best



>
> 1) Please note that I'm a Senior Technical Staff Member at IBM, not a
> Distinguished Engineer.  I work for a living ;-)
>
> 2) I've been coding in C++ for 25 years, before it was a standard, and in
> Java since it first was called Java.
>
> 3) I've coded on Lotus SmartSuite years ago, but also worked on various
> IBM efforts to componetize these editors over the years, in projects
> called eSuite and DevPack.  These editor components were done both in
> activeX as well as Java.
>
> 4) I chair the OASIS ODF Technical Committee, the group that owns the
> document format standard that OpenOffice (and LibreOffice) use as the
> default.  In my role as chair, and through my outreach, I've helped us
> more than double the membership of that committee.  I can handle
> differences of opinion.  As chair I've had to manage not only the frequent
> squabbles between Novel and Sun over the years (of which our current
> debates seem to be an echo), but also participation by Google, Microsoft,
> Nokia, KDE, AbiWord as well as many valued independent participants.
>
> 5) I'm architect for the Simple Java API for ODF at the ODF Toolkit Union,
> Java code, leading the design of that project, which is under the Apache
> 2.0 license.
>
> 6) I've been an active member of OpenOffice.org Conferences for many years
> now (since Lyon in what? 2005?  2006?) giving untold numbers of
> presentations and helping organize ODF interop workshops.
>
> 7) Less visible publicly is the work I do within IBM on technical
> direction related to "smart documents" and next generation editor
> functionality,
> working with the Symphony and LotusLive Symphony team, talking to
> customers, especially public sector.
>
> So am I an active coder on OpenOffice.org?  No.  I never said I was.  But
> I am looking forward to contribute to Apache OpenOffice.  I'd like to
> think that I have a perspective and set of skills that would be valued in
> a project like this.  I'd like to think that 20+ years experience in
> exactly this area counts, perhaps in some very small way, in the full
> generosity of your opinion, as "real development resources".
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

charles.h.schulz@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:

> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer 
and
> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has 
never
> contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall. I'm a bit surprised by this 
as
> TDF has now over 200 developers, paid and unpaid and I was under the
> impression that this number was not deemed to be enough by IBM.
> 

Charles,  You should be looking at the wiki version of the proposal, which 
is updated as additional people sign up and add their name:

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal

If you are seeing only two names then it sounds like you are looking at 
the ODT version of the proposal that was initially posted and then pasted 
into the wiki. 

But since this is around the third time today that I've seen LibreOffice 
members question my credentials, I'd like to gently remind the LibreOffice 
guests on this list that my name being near the top of the proposed 
committer list is merely expressing a chronological fact.  I was one of 
the first individuals to sign up.  Nothing more. It does not mean that 
I've been picked for any special distinction or that have any special 
prerogatives in this project. 

But since you question it, I'll mention briefly my bona fides:

1) Please note that I'm a Senior Technical Staff Member at IBM, not a 
Distinguished Engineer.  I work for a living ;-)

2) I've been coding in C++ for 25 years, before it was a standard, and in 
Java since it first was called Java.

3) I've coded on Lotus SmartSuite years ago, but also worked on various 
IBM efforts to componetize these editors over the years, in projects 
called eSuite and DevPack.  These editor components were done both in 
activeX as well as Java. 

4) I chair the OASIS ODF Technical Committee, the group that owns the 
document format standard that OpenOffice (and LibreOffice) use as the 
default.  In my role as chair, and through my outreach, I've helped us 
more than double the membership of that committee.  I can handle 
differences of opinion.  As chair I've had to manage not only the frequent 
squabbles between Novel and Sun over the years (of which our current 
debates seem to be an echo), but also participation by Google, Microsoft, 
Nokia, KDE, AbiWord as well as many valued independent participants.

5) I'm architect for the Simple Java API for ODF at the ODF Toolkit Union, 
Java code, leading the design of that project, which is under the Apache 
2.0 license. 

6) I've been an active member of OpenOffice.org Conferences for many years 
now (since Lyon in what? 2005?  2006?) giving untold numbers of 
presentations and helping organize ODF interop workshops.

7) Less visible publicly is the work I do within IBM on technical 
direction related to "smart documents" and next generation editor 
functionality, 
working with the Symphony and LotusLive Symphony team, talking to 
customers, especially public sector.

So am I an active coder on OpenOffice.org?  No.  I never said I was.  But 
I am looking forward to contribute to Apache OpenOffice.  I'd like to 
think that I have a perspective and set of skills that would be valued in 
a project like this.  I'd like to think that 20+ years experience in 
exactly this area counts, perhaps in some very small way, in the full 
generosity of your opinion, as "real development resources".

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

["Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hello Eric,

2011/6/2 eric b <er...@free.fr>

> Hi,
>
> Le 2 juin 11 à 17:16, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
>
>
>> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
>> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
>> and
>> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has never
>> contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall.
>>
>
>
> I never heard of any line of code from yourself in OpenOffice.org either.
>
> Can you point us some links please ?


I don't pretend to be a developer, never did.


>
>
>
>  I'm a bit surprised by this as TDF has now over 200 developers,
>>
>
>
> That's obviously not true :  I myself follow LibreOffice development lists
> since the beginning, reading most of the changes and patches, and I don't
> see 200 "developers", means people able to write some new feature of fix
> serious bugs in any OpenOffice.org derivative product.
>
> Of course you can add contributions from Oracle devs either, but that's a
> lie too, since all OpenOffice.org cws's were added, without Oracle devs
> being informed they "contributed" :-)



>
> Maybe you counted 200 people -say hackers- who contributed in various ways,
> simple patches or little removing ?
>


The definition of developers should be kept simple: people who contribute
code
This article will give you some data on the "200" people :
http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr/wordpress/?p=803

Charles.

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[eric b <er...@free.fr>]

Hi,

Le 2 juin 11 à 17:57, Greg Stein a écrit :


> Whether one group has more committers than the other doesn't matter  
> either. There are Apache projects with just a half-dozen people
> working on them. That is sufficient for the Foundation, so we can  
> just ignore number comparisons.
>


I fully agree, but discussions must be based on realistic information.


Regards,
Eric Bachard

-- 
qɔᴉɹə
Education Project:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

I don't think these statistics have any real relevance to the goal of
evaluating the Proposal and whether it makes sense.

Whether somebody has committed or not, the only question is "do they
have an interest in being part of the community?"

Whether one group has more committers than the other doesn't matter
either. There are Apache projects with just a half-dozen people
working on them. That is sufficient for the Foundation, so we can just
ignore number comparisons.

Cheers,
-g

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:53, eric b <er...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 2 juin 11 à 17:16, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
>>
>> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
>> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
>> and
>> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has never
>> contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall.
>
>
> I never heard of any line of code from yourself in OpenOffice.org either.
>
> Can you point us some links please ?
>
>
>> I'm a bit surprised by this as TDF has now over 200 developers,
>
>
> That's obviously not true :  I myself follow LibreOffice development lists
> since the beginning, reading most of the changes and patches, and I don't
> see 200 "developers", means people able to write some new feature of fix
> serious bugs in any OpenOffice.org derivative product.
>
> Of course you can add contributions from Oracle devs either, but that's a
> lie too, since all OpenOffice.org cws's were added, without Oracle devs
> being informed they "contributed" :-)
>
> Maybe you counted 200 people -say hackers- who contributed in various ways,
> simple patches or little removing ?
>
> To be more objective, count around 30 people sending code and really able to
> implement something in LO. But considering serious changes, this is another
> story, and you shouldn't, for credibility reasons go in this direction.
>
>
> Eric Bachard
>
> --
> qɔᴉɹə
> Education Project:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project
> Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
> L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
> Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
>
>
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[eric b <er...@free.fr>]

Hi,

Le 2 juin 11 à 17:16, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
>
> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one  
> developer and
> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has  
> never
> contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall.


I never heard of any line of code from yourself in OpenOffice.org  
either.

Can you point us some links please ?


> I'm a bit surprised by this as TDF has now over 200 developers,


That's obviously not true :  I myself follow LibreOffice development  
lists since the beginning, reading most of the changes and patches,  
and I don't see 200 "developers", means people able to write some new  
feature of fix serious bugs in any OpenOffice.org derivative product.

Of course you can add contributions from Oracle devs either, but  
that's a lie too, since all OpenOffice.org cws's were added, without  
Oracle devs being informed they "contributed" :-)

Maybe you counted 200 people -say hackers- who contributed in various  
ways, simple patches or little removing ?

To be more objective, count around 30 people sending code and really  
able to implement something in LO. But considering serious changes,  
this is another story, and you shouldn't, for credibility reasons go  
in this direction.


Eric Bachard

-- 
qɔᴉɹə
Education Project:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

["Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hello Jim,

2011/6/2 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>

>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because
> > they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being
> > antagonistic.  If truly 100% of the LibreOffice members prefer TDF to
> > Apache, then you have nothing to worry about, right?  If some prefer
> > Apache, then you have worries, if you choose to worry about such things,
> > but I don't take it as a moral fault in Apache or in the authors of this
> > proposal that we are offering an open source development choice that some
> > developers might prefer over TDF.
> >
>
> I don't see this as 2 "competing" projects... well, maybe right
> now it is, but what it is "now" doesn't mean that is how it
> should be, or will turn out to be.
>
> One simple example: Imagine the Apache project as the core
> "guts" of OOo, the framework. With TDF working on parts
> that extend and enhance OOo, in a modular fashion, for
> a particular set of end-users... or something like that.
> Or something different from that.
>
> What I'm trying to say is simple 1-1 duplication is stupid, at
> least in my mind. I don't see that as our only option; in fact,
> I see that as a really short-sighted one. We can all certainly
> do much better than that.
>


It is an honor to be on an ASF list, first of all, and I'd like to thank
everyone for joining this discussion.

To answer Jim's email, I think that while OOo and LibreOffice don't have to
be competitors, I would not necessarily want to decide why we should split
development efforts. I 'm sure the Apache Foundation has experience in
dealing with Free and Open Source Software projects but I don't think it
make sense to to split communities and give a specific role to each of them.

I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer and
Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has never
contributed code to OpenOffice, if I recall. I'm a bit surprised by this as
TDF has now over 200 developers, paid and unpaid and I was under the
impression that this number was not deemed to be enough by IBM.

Best,
Charles-H. Schulz.


>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 11:06:54 AM:

 
> 
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because 

> > they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being 

> > antagonistic.  If truly 100% of the LibreOffice members prefer TDF to 
> > Apache, then you have nothing to worry about, right?  If some prefer 
> > Apache, then you have worries, if you choose to worry about such 
things, 
> > but I don't take it as a moral fault in Apache or in the authors of 
this 
> > proposal that we are offering an open source development choice that 
some 
> > developers might prefer over TDF.
> > 
> 
> I don't see this as 2 "competing" projects... well, maybe right
> now it is, but what it is "now" doesn't mean that is how it
> should be, or will turn out to be.
> 
> One simple example: Imagine the Apache project as the core
> "guts" of OOo, the framework. With TDF working on parts
> that extend and enhance OOo, in a modular fashion, for
> a particular set of end-users... or something like that.

+1

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Blondie's Parallel Lines...

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 
> I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because 
> they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being 
> antagonistic.  If truly 100% of the LibreOffice members prefer TDF to 
> Apache, then you have nothing to worry about, right?  If some prefer 
> Apache, then you have worries, if you choose to worry about such things, 
> but I don't take it as a moral fault in Apache or in the authors of this 
> proposal that we are offering an open source development choice that some 
> developers might prefer over TDF.
> 

I don't see this as 2 "competing" projects... well, maybe right
now it is, but what it is "now" doesn't mean that is how it
should be, or will turn out to be.

One simple example: Imagine the Apache project as the core
"guts" of OOo, the framework. With TDF working on parts
that extend and enhance OOo, in a modular fashion, for
a particular set of end-users... or something like that.
Or something different from that.

What I'm trying to say is simple 1-1 duplication is stupid, at
least in my mind. I don't see that as our only option; in fact,
I see that as a really short-sighted one. We can all certainly
do much better than that.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

On 2 June 2011 17:18, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> >>> As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
> >>> opportunity to reunite.
> >>
> >> If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
> >>
> >
> > Seems to me the main issue is the license. Permissive Apache or Copyleft.
> > Those who want to be associated with permissive licensed code will come
> to
> > Apache, those that want a copyleft license will go to TDF. Those that
> don't
> > care will contribute to both or work with the community they like the
> best
> > :-). Since it seems unlikely that those that feel strongly about it will
> be
> > moved, the crux is whether either, both or neither code base gets
> sufficient
> > support to sustain its maintenance and development. Only time will tell
> and
> > only time will tell to what extent the code will diverge if both projects
> > prove viable. So what further debate is to be had? Is it not just a
> matter
> > of seeing how many committers sign up to make Apache OOo viable?
> >
>
> My impression is that TDF likes having the OOo codebase
> as AL2 since they can consume it directly. Of course, the
> reverse is not possible, but that is the advantage of an AL
> type license: after all, having the code under the AL helps
> the developer community as well as commercial entities.
>
> If the intent is having OOo as pervasive as possible, then
> it's obvious that AL wins big time.
>

I'd expect you to advocate an AL :-) My real point is that irrespective of
the merits of each license, it is this difference that is the main objective
reason that two forks would be sustained. Maybe I'm missing something else
but I can't see what that would be - apart from personal ownership and sense
of belonging which is probably at is highest now but will likely decline
over time.




>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:

> On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>>> As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
>>> opportunity to reunite.
>> 
>> If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
>> 
> 
> Seems to me the main issue is the license. Permissive Apache or Copyleft.
> Those who want to be associated with permissive licensed code will come to
> Apache, those that want a copyleft license will go to TDF. Those that don't
> care will contribute to both or work with the community they like the best
> :-). Since it seems unlikely that those that feel strongly about it will be
> moved, the crux is whether either, both or neither code base gets sufficient
> support to sustain its maintenance and development. Only time will tell and
> only time will tell to what extent the code will diverge if both projects
> prove viable. So what further debate is to be had? Is it not just a matter
> of seeing how many committers sign up to make Apache OOo viable?
> 

My impression is that TDF likes having the OOo codebase
as AL2 since they can consume it directly. Of course, the
reverse is not possible, but that is the advantage of an AL
type license: after all, having the code under the AL helps
the developer community as well as commercial entities.

If the intent is having OOo as pervasive as possible, then
it's obvious that AL wins big time.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
> > opportunity to reunite.
>
> If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
>

Seems to me the main issue is the license. Permissive Apache or Copyleft.
Those who want to be associated with permissive licensed code will come to
Apache, those that want a copyleft license will go to TDF. Those that don't
care will contribute to both or work with the community they like the best
:-). Since it seems unlikely that those that feel strongly about it will be
moved, the crux is whether either, both or neither code base gets sufficient
support to sustain its maintenance and development. Only time will tell and
only time will tell to what extent the code will diverge if both projects
prove viable. So what further debate is to be had? Is it not just a matter
of seeing how many committers sign up to make Apache OOo viable?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

["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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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

"opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>]

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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on
> repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than
> moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage
> of the current opportunities that are now open to us, then
> we need to adjust priorities a bit.

Very much agreed. Let's strike out the "missed' and keep the "opportunity"! :-)

BR,

Jukka Zitting

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> ??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my
>> comment... huh?
> 
> Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was:
> 
> "this was a missed opportunity to reunite" - "agree on that point" - "move on"
> 
> This seems like a pretty hasty conclusion just one day after Oracle
> announced its plan to give away control over OO.org.
> 

All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on
repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than
moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage
of the current opportunities that are now open to us, then
we need to adjust priorities a bit.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> ??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my
> comment... huh?

Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was:

"this was a missed opportunity to reunite" - "agree on that point" - "move on"

This seems like a pretty hasty conclusion just one day after Oracle
announced its plan to give away control over OO.org.

Did you mean something else?

BR,

Jukka Zitting

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>>> As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
>>> opportunity to reunite.
>> 
>> If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
> 
> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
> related communities.
> 

??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my
comment... huh?

> If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
> explained in the proposal before we vote on it.
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
>> opportunity to reunite.
>
> If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?

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.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
> opportunity to reunite.

If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[Thorsten Behrens <th...@documentfoundation.org>]

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> I'd like to challenge your assertion here, about "splitting the 
> community", a nonsensical meme I'm hearing repeated in several venues.
> 
Hi Rob - well, are you happier then with "perpetuating the split"?

As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite. It'll bind considerable resources to
bootstrap a new community here - resources that are better spent
enhancing the code & marketing OOo and ODF, if you ask me ...

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi Christian,

Christian Grobmeier wrote on 2011-06-02 21.09:

> Noel wants surely express OOo is open to everybody and there is no
> intention to split anything. Lets not speak about "faults" or
> anything. It is even possible that both communities can benefit from
> each other. Whatever, its not about faults imho. Not the TDF joins
> Apache, Individuals do

it's not my intention to blame anyone or to talk about faults in the 
past. I am writing here, openly, asking for honest feedback, and giving 
honest feedback from my side. I also try to stay out of "bashing" 
e-mails, as I think this does not help anyone, but we should rater 
constructively see what the situation is and we all can make out of it.

> If the proposal does not go through, we miss the chance to have an ASL
> licensed office suite. This is important for some (me included). If
> Apache refuses, its the fault of the ASF do let this chance go and
> leave Office suites to the world of GPL. This is the other side.

That's a different question, indeed. I just wanted to avoid the 
impression that the only choice for having the community united is by 
TDF joining the ASF project, and if we do not do, we are to be blamed 
for splitting the community. This is the impression I got from Noel's 
e-mail, and that's why jumped in quickly.

Thanks for the fast follow-up!

More tomorrow,
Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>]

Hi Florian

> So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is our
> (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator project
> do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault.

Noel wants surely express OOo is open to everybody and there is no
intention to split anything. Lets not speak about "faults" or
anything. It is even possible that both communities can benefit from
each other. Whatever, its not about faults imho. Not the TDF joins
Apache, Individuals do

> This looks like a rather one-sided view to me.

If the proposal does not go through, we miss the chance to have an ASL
licensed office suite. This is important for some (me included). If
Apache refuses, its the fault of the ASF do let this chance go and
leave Office suites to the world of GPL. This is the other side.


>
> Florian
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
> Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
> Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
> Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> 
> That's a tough one, Jim :-)

It's what I do :)

> 
> my personal feeling (I'm not speaking
> on behalf of TDF on this one) is that we didn't have enough time/opportunity
> to understand each other more. And now, we are looking at a hairball that
> just landed in the soup. Let's see how we can deal with this in a
> constructive way.

++1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

["Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>]

Jim,

2011/6/2 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>

>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:34 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > Sense 2 is a but more subjective, since each person might have their own
> > vision of what the ideal community would look like.
>
> Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
> south in OOo, but before TDF was formed, Oracle had done what it
> just did: donate the code and the trademark to the ASF.
>
> If that had happened, would those of you behind TDF still
> have created it? This is, I think, an important question,
> and an honest answer would get to any real underlying issues,
> imo.
>



That's a tough one, Jim :-) I can't speak for everyone else at TDF and
everyone else in general on this. My honest guess is that TDF would not have
had the momentum it has today. For a more complete answer I think we would
need to ponder how the "final" status of the project inside Apache would
have been/would be, how the project structure and goals, as well as
development processes would have been defined, etc. In a nutshell, I think
that in the absence of any alternative, OpenOffice inside Apache would have
made people happy in the sense that it would have been twenty times better
than what was happening with the "old" OpenOffice project. Yet many
difficulties would have existed (copyleft, non-copyleft being one of the
major issues).  But what this highlights imho, is that yesterday's
announcement comes out for many as something that does not make sense, at
least chronologically speaking. In French we use an expression that goes a
bit like "a hairball that landed in the soup"; I'm certainly not comparing
ASF to a hairball nor soup :-) but you get the idea. Worse, perhaps, is the
growing impression that something has gone wrong or didn't work the right
way between the major proponent of an OpenOffice project inside the Apache
foundation, IBM, and TDF. At least that's my feeling. I understand IBM has
business and strategic requirements, my personal feeling (I'm not speaking
on behalf of TDF on this one) is that we didn't have enough time/opportunity
to understand each other more. And now, we are looking at a hairball that
just landed in the soup. Let's see how we can deal with this in a
constructive way.

Best,
Charles.



>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

Nice job of decontextualization (typical troll tactic).
Here is what I was responding to:

------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----
> From: toki <to...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 6:25:30 AM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 06/06/2011 08:02,  Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> 
> > AIUI the TDF uses the LGPL. Like the  Apache License (AL), the LGPL
> > also allows proprietary software to be  built on top. So, why would you
> > break your rule for a TDF project but  not an ASF one?
> 
> It is much easier to convert Apache licensed code to  closed source,
> proprietary software, than it is to convert LGPL licensed code  to closed
> source, proprietary software.
> 
> Given the history of OOo,  instead of 100 commercial vendors of the
> product, pointing to OOo for  support, but not providing source code, and
> not telling anybody what code  changes were made, under the Apache
> License you'll have 1,000 such  vendors.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Your complaint is about people who at the very least intend
to abide by the terms of our license, which does not grant
anyone access to the OOo brand.  In your followup to me below,
you've changed to complaining about scofflaws, which I guess consists
of about 0.01% of the existing OOo community.  If forum participants
can't deal with that level of off-topic traffic, perhaps we don't need
the forums after all.

Make up your mind please.  Talking out of both sides of your mouth
doesn't benefit anyone here.




----- Original Message ----
> From: toki <to...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 11:40:41 AM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 06/06/2011 13:58, Joe  Schaefer wrote:
> 
> > Because Apache will own the brand, we can make  access to the brand
> contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums,  among other
> things.
> 
> ROTFLMAO
> 
> At best, you are incredibly naive.  Those policies will stop the
> companies for all of one picosecond, if that  long.
> 
> I've a feeling The Apache Foundation has never had to test  their
> trademark policy with organizations whose modus operandi is to  ignore
> the law. Organizations whose legal status is, at best, shaky.  Invariably
> with a domicile outside of the United States.
> 
> If the Apache  Foundation doesn't have a formal policy on dealing with
> victims of swindlers,  formulating that policy now would be a very good
> idea. Something that the  legal team can mull through, before the first
> victim of an Apache OpenOffice  swindle posts a support question to a
> list, forum, or other point of  contact.
> 
> A policy that won't result in The Apache Foundation having to  defend
> itself in a frivolous lawsuit, because the victim paid for  support
> provided by a venue run by The Apache  Foundation.
> 
> jonathon
> - -- 
> If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be  anything new worth requesting.
> 
> If Bing did not copy Google, there  wouldn't be anything relevant worth
> requesting.
> 
>                                 DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.
> -----BEGIN PGP  SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG  with Mozilla -  http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN7PT0AAoJEERA7YuLpVrVHX8IAIXsqi5+Siea9XWtap58CjWM
> z1tfFeEAHGlY9ChamXkshcOh0P4/E/fYZPhiASggatvN2DsQGwWQloX0CqlKou+A
> 9f6kEOOrgZd9SSC4pSZRQ705apWl9p7c04IjucaY9WTYT6kHsNBEkv++4Q8f4QQL
> PWvtBzohYNdGLtTvuxmgT160IBxA2+VoHKnXwztAthTssuz0fq9gX/ZZWWQOFm2G
> 6v6+rsvzXDFH9bAnwf9prWD4J+psFrjAX15U6KrcCBLJ12wahq5ZwmTSs1/pTt+q
> fRiVIdrRGg9OuFFATbbz63TUrin0ttuSBjyP1V8RlnbQcEM1mSjYlXmHmFoQ0oQ=
> =Vaee
> -----END  PGP  SIGNATURE-----
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:40 AM, toki wrote:

> 
> ROTFLMAO
> 
> At best, you are incredibly naive. Those policies will stop the
> companies for all of one picosecond, if that long.
> 

ladies and gentlemen, we have another troll...

Please don't feed.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

[toki <to...@gmail.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/06/2011 13:58, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
things.

ROTFLMAO

At best, you are incredibly naive. Those policies will stop the
companies for all of one picosecond, if that long.

I've a feeling The Apache Foundation has never had to test their
trademark policy with organizations whose modus operandi is to ignore
the law. Organizations whose legal status is, at best, shaky. Invariably
with a domicile outside of the United States.

If the Apache Foundation doesn't have a formal policy on dealing with
victims of swindlers, formulating that policy now would be a very good
idea. Something that the legal team can mull through, before the first
victim of an Apache OpenOffice swindle posts a support question to a
list, forum, or other point of contact.

A policy that won't result in The Apache Foundation having to defend
itself in a frivolous lawsuit, because the victim paid for support
provided by a venue run by The Apache Foundation.

jonathon
- -- 
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.

If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
requesting.

                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN7PT0AAoJEERA7YuLpVrVHX8IAIXsqi5+Siea9XWtap58CjWM
z1tfFeEAHGlY9ChamXkshcOh0P4/E/fYZPhiASggatvN2DsQGwWQloX0CqlKou+A
9f6kEOOrgZd9SSC4pSZRQ705apWl9p7c04IjucaY9WTYT6kHsNBEkv++4Q8f4QQL
PWvtBzohYNdGLtTvuxmgT160IBxA2+VoHKnXwztAthTssuz0fq9gX/ZZWWQOFm2G
6v6+rsvzXDFH9bAnwf9prWD4J+psFrjAX15U6KrcCBLJ12wahq5ZwmTSs1/pTt+q
fRiVIdrRGg9OuFFATbbz63TUrin0ttuSBjyP1V8RlnbQcEM1mSjYlXmHmFoQ0oQ=
=Vaee
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

I think we have to recognize needs of the existing ecosystem

before we go blindly applying our newly-minted trademark
policy.  We've become rather keen on protecting our marks
from encroachment from commercial endeavors, and that will
certainly carry over to OOo.


----- Original Message ----
> From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 10:04:17 AM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
> 
> On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, "Joe Schaefer" <jo...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >
> > Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to  the brand
> > contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among  other
> > things.
> >
> > Carrots and sticks.
> 
> Is Apache  historically flexible in this area? I had the impression the
> trademark policy  was usually strictly applied and narrowly interpreted.
> 
> S.
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, "Joe Schaefer" <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
> contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
> things.
>
> Carrots and sticks.

Is Apache historically flexible in this area? I had the impression the
trademark policy was usually strictly applied and narrowly interpreted.

S.

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

----- Original Message ----
> From: toki <to...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 6:25:30 AM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 06/06/2011 08:02,  Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> 
> > AIUI the TDF uses the LGPL. Like the  Apache License (AL), the LGPL
> > also allows proprietary software to be  built on top. So, why would you
> > break your rule for a TDF project but  not an ASF one?
> 
> It is much easier to convert Apache licensed code to  closed source,
> proprietary software, than it is to convert LGPL licensed code  to closed
> source, proprietary software.
> 
> Given the history of OOo,  instead of 100 commercial vendors of the
> product, pointing to OOo for  support, but not providing source code, and
> not telling anybody what code  changes were made, under the Apache
> License you'll have 1,000 such  vendors.

Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
things.

Carrots and sticks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

[toki <to...@gmail.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/06/2011 08:02, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

> AIUI the TDF uses the LGPL. Like the Apache License (AL), the LGPL
> also allows proprietary software to be built on top. So, why would you
> break your rule for a TDF project but not an ASF one?

It is much easier to convert Apache licensed code to closed source,
proprietary software, than it is to convert LGPL licensed code to closed
source, proprietary software.

Given the history of OOo, instead of 100 commercial vendors of the
product, pointing to OOo for support, but not providing source code, and
not telling anybody what code changes were made, under the Apache
License you'll have 1,000 such vendors.

###

Did anybody bother telling The Apache Foundation people during the
negotiations that the OOo community is listed as the _official_ support
site for at least a dozen commercially distributed versions. Vendors
that didn't bother to inform the OOo community of that status. Vendors
that didn't bother tell their paying customers that the "paid support"
was volunteers from OOo community that wouldn't be able to address all
of their problems/issues?

jonathon
- -- 
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.

If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
requesting.

                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.

    * English - detected
    * English

    * English

 <javascript:void(0);> <#>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN7KsTAAoJEERA7YuLpVrVAeIIAIv0moR09nNk73L4/63yS0R2
QOarxEylxY/HURogEnAr6t7KmBzq6FzKSbZoLVApgbHOVUuUGe1KWf5z9+Xm/9bT
C3HZd18RJ/Ea+cGjwRa23kkd+GKUKF8w/dOiT/2UL2BdtejPz8lp237CsCAeVqIK
5LawJP7BeA0xNJTURFOkRDaQ9mIPNyRZ++od9meiO18XrvgQBC5PC7Jt1b3yiud7
KrvMFBWHxifScerHSOuOoBbzTAGorz0v8E2oyaO91Whoxow4YgweD6WY3nu5KlBm
u/CfVXBXKvLakPqCmfOLoU78vYMMggXL3yBMOgE4tV/hmy1+YGpAey26ck0FVBg=
=lKMU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Italo Vignoli <it...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 09:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

Hi Italo

>> Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
>> south in OOo, but before TDF was formed, Oracle had done what it
>> just did: donate the code and the trademark to the ASF.
>> If that had happened, would those of you behind TDF still
>> have created it? This is, I think, an important question,
>> and an honest answer would get to any real underlying issues,
>> imo.
>
> Very honest answer: not being familiar with ASF founding principles, and
> perceiving ASF as a very respectable organization, I would prolly start
> contributing to the project, but as soon as I would have discovered that
> based on ASF license you can build a proprietary SW I would have abandoned
> the project.

I'm a little confused by this...

AIUI the TDF uses the LGPL. Like the Apache License (AL), the LGPL
also allows proprietary software to be built on top. So, why would you
break your rule for a TDF project but not an ASF one?

Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

[Italo Vignoli <it...@gmail.com>]

On 06/02/2011 09:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
> south in OOo, but before TDF was formed, Oracle had done what it
> just did: donate the code and the trademark to the ASF.
> If that had happened, would those of you behind TDF still
> have created it? This is, I think, an important question,
> and an honest answer would get to any real underlying issues,
> imo.

Very honest answer: not being familiar with ASF founding principles, and 
perceiving ASF as a very respectable organization, I would prolly start 
contributing to the project, but as soon as I would have discovered that 
based on ASF license you can build a proprietary SW I would have 
abandoned the project.

At OOo, I have never signed neither the JCA nor the SCA, and I have 
always been extremely critical vs Sun and openly refused to cooperate if 
Sun could benefit from the outcome of my work.

I know that ASF has a different view on this subject, but I have just 
expressed my personal opinion.

-- 
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
email italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org
phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813
skype italovignoli - italo.vignoli@gmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:34 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> Sense 2 is a but more subjective, since each person might have their own 
> vision of what the ideal community would look like.

Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
south in OOo, but before TDF was formed, Oracle had done what it
just did: donate the code and the trademark to the ASF.

If that had happened, would those of you behind TDF still
have created it? This is, I think, an important question,
and an honest answer would get to any real underlying issues,
imo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote on 06/02/2011 
03:01:26 PM:

> 
> Hello,
> 
> as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other 
> messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented:
> 
> Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
> > If there is a community split, that
> > decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our 
all-inclusive
> > environment.
> 
> So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is 
> our (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator 
> project do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault.
> 
> This looks like a rather one-sided view to me.
> 

If I may make a quick observation. We're spinning around on words here. 
That is not useful.  The word "community" is being used in two different 
senses, and this equivocation is wasting a lot of time on this list.  Let 
me just spell it out explicitly and maybe we can avoid wasting more time 
on it:

Community (sense 1):  Any specific existing group of people who are 
members of an actual open source project.

Community (sense 2): An aspirational vision of a group of people whom 
someone thinks ought to be working together on a specific open source 
project.

I don't think that anyone can argue that Apache OpenOffice would, in any 
active sense, "split" an existing community, in sense 1.

Sense 2 is a but more subjective, since each person might have their own 
vision of what the ideal community would look like.  To some Apache 
OpenOffice would be bringing that community together.  To another person, 
with a different vision, it might be splitting it.  But I suggest that 
using a violent term like "split" and to accuse others of doing it, but 
then to have it applied to an idealized vision of a community that does 
not exist today, that is a rhetorical device best omitted.

An alternative way of expressing it, in a more natural fashion, might be: 
(and not to put words in Florian's mouth) "I have a vision of a unified 
community in LibreOffice but this future unity cannot be achieved if there 
exits others who are contributing to a different community". 

-Rob


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 22:42, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The existing of TDF and the preference of its contributors for
>> copyleft is data, but for me it's not data that could persuade me to
>> vote -1 in this PMC. I don't care if there are 5,000 people out there
>> who are firmly planning to stick to TDF like glue. I care if there are
>> 10 or 20 who are prepared to take this on.
>>
>
> But you probably make it more likely that you will get your 10-20 and more
> if you don't unnecessarily alienate those who have put a lot of time and
> effort into OOo in the past. In addition, if we want a thriving open source
> office project it makes sense to treat those involved with some sensitivity
> because hopefully everyone will work together constructively in the future.
>

True, but there are very strict and simple limits to what the ASF can
and can't do. It can't host a copyleft project. It can't hire a cyborg
and a time machine. We have the code, and we have our process. We can
be polite, but it is very important for everyone involved to
understand that we cannot, in my opinion, do copyleft, nor can we shut
the door in the face of a legitimate proposal, even one that disturbs
many people who have worked on this code in the past.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

On 2 June 2011 22:42, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The existing of TDF and the preference of its contributors for
> copyleft is data, but for me it's not data that could persuade me to
> vote -1 in this PMC. I don't care if there are 5,000 people out there
> who are firmly planning to stick to TDF like glue. I care if there are
> 10 or 20 who are prepared to take this on.
>

But you probably make it more likely that you will get your 10-20 and more
if you don't unnecessarily alienate those who have put a lot of time and
effort into OOo in the past. In addition, if we want a thriving open source
office project it makes sense to treat those involved with some sensitivity
because hopefully everyone will work together constructively in the future.

Personally, I also prefer to be lenient about launching podlings and
> then strict about noticing when they are failing to hatch.
>
> I am sympathetic to those TDF contributors for whom this development
> arrives as an unwelcome surprise and perhaps a cheap parthian shot
> from Oracle and IBM. However, as a member of the ASF and the incubator
> PMC, my sympathy does not extend to voting against this proposal on
> criteria related to the possible damage to TDF/LO or the success or
> failure of some attempt treat this as 'the one and only' successor to
> the Sun's open office.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> This whole topic seems to suffer from malformed or uninformative subject
> lines.
>
> I submit that it's not the purview of the ASF or the Incubator PMC to
> achieve world peace, or whirled peas, or a single project for open
> source document software.
>
> Oracle has granted code to the ASF. A group of people have made a
> proposal to launch a podling based on that granted code. The incubator
> has criteria for judging proposals. They relate to the probability of
> the successful creation of a self-sustaining Apache project.
>
> The existing of TDF and the preference of its contributors for
> copyleft is data, but for me it's not data that could persuade me to
> vote -1 in this PMC. I don't care if there are 5,000 people out there
> who are firmly planning to stick to TDF like glue. I care if there are
> 10 or 20 who are prepared to take this on.
>

+1


Phil

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

This whole topic seems to suffer from malformed or uninformative subject lines.

I submit that it's not the purview of the ASF or the Incubator PMC to
achieve world peace, or whirled peas, or a single project for open
source document software.

Oracle has granted code to the ASF. A group of people have made a
proposal to launch a podling based on that granted code. The incubator
has criteria for judging proposals. They relate to the probability of
the successful creation of a self-sustaining Apache project.

The existing of TDF and the preference of its contributors for
copyleft is data, but for me it's not data that could persuade me to
vote -1 in this PMC. I don't care if there are 5,000 people out there
who are firmly planning to stick to TDF like glue. I care if there are
10 or 20 who are prepared to take this on.

Personally, I also prefer to be lenient about launching podlings and
then strict about noticing when they are failing to hatch.

I am sympathetic to those TDF contributors for whom this development
arrives as an unwelcome surprise and perhaps a cheap parthian shot
from Oracle and IBM. However, as a member of the ASF and the incubator
PMC, my sympathy does not extend to voting against this proposal on
criteria related to the possible damage to TDF/LO or the success or
failure of some attempt treat this as 'the one and only' successor to
the Sun's open office.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

On 2 June 2011 21:22, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:

> Florian Effenberger wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > If there is a community split, that decision will rest solely on those
> > > who choose not to join our all-inclusive environment.
>
> > So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is
> > our (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator
> > project do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault.
>
> > This looks like a rather one-sided view to me
>
> Charles says that he doesn't want to "enter a debate on licensing."  But
> licensing is an elephant in the room.  Oracle's move with OO.o will fully
> open the project to all participants and use-cases, including those who
> might previously have had to enter into alternate, paid, licensing
> arrangements with the copyright holder.
>

Emotionally, ownership (in its broadest sense) is a factor but if we put
that aside for a minute, the only real issue *is* licensing. If there was
complete agreement on licensing why would there be a need for more than one
project? If a developer is totally committed to a copyleft license they
might prefer to contribute to a copyleft licensed product development and
same for a developer that wants a more permissive license the other way.  If
you are not bothered either way it won't matter. So the only other practical
consideration is whether Apache OOo will get sufficient support. There are 9
names on the commit list which seems surprisingly few to me but maybe
everyone is just waiting to see what happens.  I'm wondering whether the
document foundation could not as its name suggests become more about odf as
a format? I helped start the OpenDocument Fellowship with that in mind so I
think there is a need. LibreOffice could be a copyleft licensed version of
the more liberally licensed Apache code. So on that model all stays much the
same but with agreed cooperation to get the best out of it. Main long term
problem I see is a potential divergence of the code due to the different
licenses but I can't see how that risk can be avoided in the circumstances.

       --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
>> If there is a community split, that
>> decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our all-inclusive
>> environment.
> 
> So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is our (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator project do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault.
> 
> This looks like a rather one-sided view to me.

What's up with the adversarial tone that the conversation has assumed? And so quickly, too. Surely a major goal should be to discussion how to reunite the community (and the code base) rather than deepening the rift that was artificially imposed on the community.

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
rbowen@apache.org







---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi,

Kevin Lau wrote on 2011-06-06 15.35:

> -Can you help me to understand this "Simon posted one possible creative
>   solution"?
>
> It seems the discussion is making progress. I like to think this is
> appropriate to be seen in "Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are
> we now?)" thread than here.

I referred to this one: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg28006.html

I am not saying this is my preferred choice, and this is by far not a 
TDF statement; I am saying that there are indeed creative ways to work 
together, rather than setting up two projects in parallel.

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Kevin Lau <ke...@fas.harvard.edu>]

Florian,

>Yes, I see the licensing topic and that there are different views on that.
However, I don't know if that >requires to set-up all community efforts a
second time. Simon posted one possible creative solution. >Setting up a
parallel project IMHO is wrong.

-Can you help me to understand this "Simon posted one possible creative
 solution"?

It seems the discussion is making progress. I like to think this is
appropriate to be seen in "Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are
we now?)" thread than here.

-- 
Kevin

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi,

Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-05 22.26:
>> That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...
>> >
> Please see:
>
> 	http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html

if you want to get a good overview on the progress, here are a few 
(though lenghty) blog postings that might help:

http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/05/24/updates-on-the-foundation/

http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg00923.html

http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/04/20/status-quo-on-the-foundation-part-ii/

http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/03/18/status-quo-on-the-foundation/

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> 
>> I had thought you were further away...
> 
> That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...
> 

Please see:

	http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
> <fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>>...
>> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
>> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
>> enough."

(FWIW I aimed - but probably failing - to be much more nuanced)

> I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or anybody else. *I* certainly
> said it, and strongly believe it. But that's just me :-)

I believe that setting up a new upstream Foundation to play with major
corporations with a new governance model, IP system and legal
framework is difficult and unrewarding work best avoided where
possible. (It's a PITA. Given a choice, I would have preferred to
spend much less of my life on it...)

Given the donation to Apache, TDF could opt to focus on development
downstream of the ASF cloning the well known GPLv3 distributed
development model with copyright assigned to the FSF. Most problems
(with major corporations players, IP or whatever) that the TDF
community didn't want to handle right away could then be pushed
upstream to the ASF or the FSF. Less risk and more freedom for the
TDF.

>> Besides, the currently existing association has a governance model, is
>> non-profit and donations are tax-deductible.
>
> Ah! I didn't know that the current sponsor enabled that. Good stuff.

+1

> I had thought you were further away...

That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...

Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi Greg,

Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.39:

>> so, why don't the ASF, the Mozilla Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation and
>> the GNOME Foundation unite? :-)
>
> Different goals.

that said, I think the goals of ASF - without knowing your statutes in 
detail yet - and TDF differ as well. Not that we want different things 
in general, but this goes back to what I said earlier about reinventing 
the wheel and doing efforts in parallel, which I would like to avoid.

TDF has been specifically set up to fit the needs of the community 
around OpenOffice.org and possible associated products, which is 
reflected (or confirmed, however you want to see it) by the fact that 
the vast majority moved over to TDF. They wouldn't have done so, IMHO, 
if we did a terrible job or they felt we were a badhome. We have shaped 
all the processes and things we came up with to be the best for that 
specific community, and I think we did a pretty well job so far.

Questions coming up on the incubator list, like infrastructure, 
buildbots, repositories and the like, we already *have* the solution in 
place, whereas here it at least needs to be discussed, or even implemented.

Of course, Apache is a good home for an open source project, but why 
does it make sense to set-up everything again, run through all the 
processes again and invest all the time and efforts again, while there 
*is* already a home that (IMHO) fits better.

So, I don't want to discuss this over and over again, but I hope with 
the background information I sent earlier, my points become a bit more 
obvious. :-)

> I wasn't trying to make that argument. Just a generic statement about
> open source groups thinking it is all cool to have their own
> foundation. It isn't. Far from it. Django... Drupal... this that and
> the other.

We definitely don't do it out of the reason just to have it. :-) It 
costs lots of time, and I am sure everyone who is involved in setting up 
or running the Apache foundation can confirm that. We have taken that 
step, because there was no real alternative. So, setting up our own 
entity was the only senseful idea.

And now, that we have everything up and running, moving over again - it 
does not make much sense. It just doubles the work, leads to confusion 
and irritation, if we set up projects in parallel.

Yes, I see the licensing topic and that there are different views on 
that. However, I don't know if that requires to set-up all community 
efforts a second time. Simon posted one possible creative solution. 
Setting up a parallel project IMHO is wrong.

Hope my point is clear now. :)

>> This might not affect other topics, but honestly, I think the perception of
>> what already is in existence is not clear enough for many parties on this
>> list. :-) Hope I could shed some light on it...
>
> You very much did. Thank you!

Thanks! If there are questions, feel free to ask them. I elaborated on 
that topic so much, as I fear that there are just false rumors spreading 
at the moment. It is definitely not right that TDF is unable to handle 
things that would be required due to Oracle's new step. We *are* able to 
handle things, not only from the community, but also from the legal 
perspective. If people doubt that, I am happy to discuss this in public 
as well, but we never have been asked these questions - it was simply 
presumed we weren't ready yet. Which is just wrong.

While I do not know much about the first days of the Apache foundation, 
let me still try to draw an analogy: When you had created everything 
needed, collected donations, had a vivid community, a product, a working 
governance, a legal backing, a user base and even large enterprise 
users, and just a few steps were missing for the legal "stamp" of being 
a foundation - when then a corporation donated a web server source code 
to another foundation, would you have said "Of course, let's do it there 
and re-invent everything again", or would you have said "Well, let's 
find ways to incorporate things under the already existing umbrella"?

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:19, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03:
>
>>> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
>>> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh
>>> have
>>> enough."
>>
>> I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or anybody else. *I* certainly
>> said it, and strongly believe it. But that's just me :-)
>
> so, why don't the ASF, the Mozilla Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation and
> the GNOME Foundation unite? :-)

Different goals.

I actually helped in setting up the Eclipse Foundation :-P (and the
Python Software Foundation, for that matter)

MoFo exists to own MoCo. Eclipse is a consortium, rather than a
charity. So of the group, it would be GNOME and ASF that are most
similar. Danese could probably speak to why GNOME Foundation was set
up. I dunno, but I do think its duplication is sad...

> Sorry for the provocative question, I just wanted to state "But we already
> have a foundation" is no good argument for me. However, I think the point

I wasn't trying to make that argument. Just a generic statement about
open source groups thinking it is all cool to have their own
foundation. It isn't. Far from it. Django... Drupal... this that and
the other.

>...
> This might not affect other topics, but honestly, I think the perception of
> what already is in existence is not clear enough for many parties on this
> list. :-) Hope I could shed some light on it...

You very much did. Thank you!

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi,

Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03:

>> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
>> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
>> enough."
>
> I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or anybody else. *I* certainly
> said it, and strongly believe it. But that's just me :-)

so, why don't the ASF, the Mozilla Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation 
and the GNOME Foundation unite? :-)

Sorry for the provocative question, I just wanted to state "But we 
already have a foundation" is no good argument for me. However, I think 
the point why we hear these topics is another one, being some false 
rumors spreading, so I hope I can clarify some things.

> Ah! I didn't know that the current sponsor enabled that. Good stuff. I
> had thought you were further away...

There is no Foundation as German legal entity yet, but we are right 
before creating it. We have collected 50.000 € capital stock plus about 
45.000 € in further donations, specifically for a donation in Germany. 
Thousands of people from all over the world, developers, corporations 
and especially many, many end-users, have donated. They want a 
foundation, they want it in Germany, they want us to set this up - 
otherwise I doubt they would have donated so much money in such a short 
period of time. I think it's important to emphasize that most donors 
have been individuals, so it's not that two or three corporations have 
donated all the money.

Second is, we already have a well-established German entity. It's an 
association, not a foundation, but the association has been in existence 
since 2004. We have about 170 business and private members and have 
basically taken care of many legal aspects of the German community so 
far. Plus, we have supported international events, created 
infrastructure, and we have organized two times a congress for business 
and administration with about 100 participants each time, including 
major players. With the legal backing of the association, we have 
organized trade show appearences with partners and produced DVDs. Even 
governmental entities, ministries and large corporations see us as one 
of *the* point of contact for free office software in Germany. So, it's 
not an unimportant little entity, but rather a powerful entity, with 
existing governance, and we are publically acknowledged as non-profit, 
and donations to us are tax-deductible.

So, in a nutshell, stating there was no entity able to handle things is 
simply *WRONG*. It is no foundation yet, but that's about it. And, for 
the foundation, we are close to setting this up, too. We expect to hand 
in the statutes to the ministry the next week or the week thereafter.

This might not affect other topics, but honestly, I think the perception 
of what already is in existence is not clear enough for many parties on 
this list. :-) Hope I could shed some light on it...

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>...
> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
> enough."

I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or anybody else. *I* certainly
said it, and strongly believe it. But that's just me :-)

> Besides, the currently existing association has a governance model, is
> non-profit and donations are tax-deductible.

Ah! I didn't know that the current sponsor enabled that. Good stuff. I
had thought you were further away...

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi,

Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-05 16.41:

> Non-profit foundations are constrained to act in certain ways. For
> example, it is hard for either the Apache or the Free Software
> Foundations to close source donated code.

that's the same for a German-based foundation, and exactly the same for 
a German-based nonprofit association, which we currently have as legal 
entity. So, no difference at all, except for the location. :) The German 
association also is bound to their statutes and rules.

> Workarounds would have been possible but would have been slower and
> less certain to succeed. Donation to a existing non-profit foundation
> with an established governance model is a quick and sure way to get
> the code out from for-profit corporate control and to the community.

That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are 
saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh 
have enough."

Besides, the currently existing association has a governance model, is 
non-profit and donations are tax-deductible. So, I really don't see this 
as an issue, and I guess we would have had a similar discussion of the 
foundation was already in effect. ;)

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-04 16.28:

<snip>

>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
>> recommendation, than taxes.

+1

> I tend to agree.

IMO it's all about governance.

Non-profit foundations are constrained to act in certain ways. For
example, it is hard for either the Apache or the Free Software
Foundations to close source donated code.

> At least it would have not been impossible at all to work
> around that donation isuse, if there had been a will to do so. But I guess
> that should not be the topic of this thread. :-)

Workarounds would have been possible but would have been slower and
less certain to succeed. Donation to a existing non-profit foundation
with an established governance model is a quick and sure way to get
the code out from for-profit corporate control and to the community.

Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi,

Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-04 16.28:
> "Oracle America" is the full name of the entity that granted us the code.
> They may not have been able to get the same tax deduction donating to a
> foreign entity. The tax deduction would be*considerable*  given the value of
> the OOo brand.

ah, sorry, then I understood this wrong - I understood the mail in a way 
that in general, an US-based solution would be better. Of course, for 
US-based entitites, a US foundation has advantages, whereas for 
European-based entities, an European foundation has advantages. What I 
wanted to point out is that in any way, a solution has to be found for 
those not located in the legislative of the foundation, so ASF and TDF 
have the same issues here to solve.

> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
> recommendation, than taxes.

I tend to agree. At least it would have not been impossible at all to 
work around that donation isuse, if there had been a will to do so. But 
I guess that should not be the topic of this thread. :-)

More on the other mails later on,
Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jim, all,
>>> 
>>> 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
>>>>> recommendation, than taxes.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
>>>> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
>>>> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
>>>> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
>>>> a sense. Taxes were not an issue...
>>>> 
>>> I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable":
>>> 
>> http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/
>>> 
>>> TDF just refused to pay for anything which is under contract of Oracle.
>>> 
>> 
>> Thx for the link. It is good to see TDF opening up regarding
>> what their original request was to Oracle. Subsequent discussions,
>> of course, are not known but so what. They are moot. For whatever
>> reason, Oracle did not think that TDF was the right place. That
>> ship has sailed. Time to figure out what to do now.
>> 
> 
> I asked, and apparently there were no subsequent discussions.  But I agree,
> this ship has sailed and I'd be pleased to see this all move into a
> podlet...

I asked as well as was told otherwise... but again, it's moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
>
> > Hi Jim, all,
> >
> > 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
> >>
> >> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
> >>> recommendation, than taxes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
> >> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
> >> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
> >> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
> >> a sense. Taxes were not an issue...
> >>
> > I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable":
> >
> http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/
> >
> > TDF just refused to pay for anything which is under contract of Oracle.
> >
>
> Thx for the link. It is good to see TDF opening up regarding
> what their original request was to Oracle. Subsequent discussions,
> of course, are not known but so what. They are moot. For whatever
> reason, Oracle did not think that TDF was the right place. That
> ship has sailed. Time to figure out what to do now.
>

I asked, and apparently there were no subsequent discussions.  But I agree,
this ship has sailed and I'd be pleased to see this all move into a
podlet...

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:

> Hi Jim, all,
> 
> 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
>> 
>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
>>> recommendation, than taxes.
>>> 
>> 
>> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
>> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
>> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
>> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
>> a sense. Taxes were not an issue...
>> 
> I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable":
> http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/
> 
> TDF just refused to pay for anything which is under contract of Oracle.
> 

Thx for the link. It is good to see TDF opening up regarding
what their original request was to Oracle. Subsequent discussions,
of course, are not known but so what. They are moot. For whatever
reason, Oracle did not think that TDF was the right place. That
ship has sailed. Time to figure out what to do now.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi Jim,

Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.20:
> I replied on the TDF ML about #3 which, from my reading (and
> from what I have been told by entities both within and outside
> of Oracle) requested the "infrastructure" which was later
> clarified to mean servers, various hardware, access to
> private Oracle infrastructure, etc... Which I also think
> Oracle would have balked at as well...
>
> Had TDF requested just #1 and #2, as well as a more liberal
> license,*maybe*  things would have been different... but
> who knows. Those sorts of questions do more to retard progress
> than advance it...
>
> We are here... let's continue moving forward!

your interpretation of #3 is wrong. It reads "available for transfer", 
and emphasizes that by "into The Document Foundation's infrastructure". 
There is not a single word about hardware wanted.

Being the person in charge of our infrastructure, together with our 
team, I confirm we would not have needed any additional hardware. We 
have all we need, everything works like a charm and we still have lots 
of space and resources free.

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Volker Merschmann wrote:
> 
>>> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
>>> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
>>> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
>>> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
>>> a sense. Taxes were not an issue...
> 
>> I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable":
> 
> Well, "We believe that the MPL (over say an Apache license) as a copy-left
> license, is crucial to community growth and acceptance, and has proved
> itself with Mozilla" may not have been palatable.
> 

I replied on the TDF ML about #3 which, from my reading (and
from what I have been told by entities both within and outside
of Oracle) requested the "infrastructure" which was later
clarified to mean servers, various hardware, access to
private Oracle infrastructure, etc... Which I also think
Oracle would have balked at as well...

Had TDF requested just #1 and #2, as well as a more liberal
license, *maybe* things would have been different... but
who knows. Those sorts of questions do more to retard progress
than advance it...

We are here... let's continue moving forward!

Cheers!


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Volker Merschmann wrote:

> > I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
> > that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
> > as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
> > suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
> > a sense. Taxes were not an issue...

> I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable":

Well, "We believe that the MPL (over say an Apache license) as a copy-left
license, is crucial to community growth and acceptance, and has proved
itself with Mozilla" may not have been palatable.

	--- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Volker Merschmann <me...@gmail.com>]

Hi Jim, all,

2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
>> recommendation, than taxes.
>>
>
> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
> a sense. Taxes were not an issue...
>
I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable":
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/

TDF just refused to pay for anything which is under contract of Oracle.

Bye

Volker


-- 
Volker Merschmann
Member of The Document Foundation
http://www.documentfoundation.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> 
> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
> recommendation, than taxes.
> 

I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
a sense. Taxes were not an issue...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Jun 4, 2011 10:08 AM, "Florian Effenberger" <
floeff@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05:
>
>> In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org.
>
>
> where is this different from a German entity where donations are
tax-deductible, like with the current association (which is even accredited
as "especially meritorious" by the tax department), or the foundation
currently created?

"Oracle America" is the full name of the entity that granted us the code.
They may not have been able to get the same tax deduction donating to a
foreign entity. The tax deduction would be *considerable* given the value of
the OOo brand.

Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
recommendation, than taxes.

Cheers,
-g

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi,

Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05:
> In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org.

where is this different from a German entity where donations are 
tax-deductible, like with the current association (which is even 
accredited as "especially meritorious" by the tax department), or the 
foundation currently created?

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Julien Vermillard <jv...@gmail.com>]

On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to join in here:
>
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14:
>
> The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
> copyright or code today. Apache is.
>
>
> Why? Can you elaborate?

In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org.
Julien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Sophie Gautier <ga...@gmail.com>]

Hi,
On 04/06/2011 16:03, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> 2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkin<ro...@gmail.com>

[...]

>> The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
>> and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an
>> alternative path might achieve their aims faster...
>>
>
>
> We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
> have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap
> that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they
> don't even know?

This development of our governance and structure is also the result of 
10 years of project and community life, working together and elaborating 
our rules and processes, having a deep knowledge of the ecosystem and of 
our user base. The TDF is born from this analyze and is the maturation 
of this community, this is why we see it unified even when creating the 
foundation.

Kind regards
Sophie
>
> Best,
> Charles.
>
>
>
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTi=AY5PM-XVCVBxxJwJ0EqQQPwwWug@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>


-- 
Founding member of The Document Foundation

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 4, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> 
> I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who
> made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we
> naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be
> kept, well, off the record. But then if everybody else comes up with his own
> version it might be necessary for TDF to bring its own version to the table.
> 

Sorry... I didn't mean to open a can of worms. What I wanted to
do was ensure that people knew that there were discussions between
TDF and Oracle (and Oracle/IBM) and that asking the ASF "what's wrong
with TDF" or "why Oracle/IBM didn't give it to us" is both asking
the wrong person as well as asking for heresay. It's just important
for the people from the ASF side who do not know the history, and
may be asking "Why didn't Oracle/IBM chat w/ TDF" to know that it
*did* happen. 

> 
> I think I have expressed myself -and so did TDF- on our interest to work
> with ASF. We are discussing terms, and also how the general discussion is
> framed. But this being said I also do feel we're making progress, aren't we?
> 

I think we are, yes, and it's a great feeling...

> 
>> 
>> P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep
>> the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the
>> OOo space, it is not "just" the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*.
>> 
> 
> I would rephrase this in a different way. This is Free Sofware, TDF's
> mission is to replace the "OOo space" with the "LibreOffice space", and yes
> there are other players, but I feel that's somewhat obvious.  :)

By point is that the Apache podling proposal is about OpenOffice.org,
the entire community, and so while we need to ensure open lines of
communication and collaboration and cooperation between the ASF and
TDF, we (the ASF) must also ensure that other members of the OOo
community and eco-system feel just as important to the discussion
and the events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

["Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hello Jim,

2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>

>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> >
> > We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
> > have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to
> scrap
> > that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance
> they
> > don't even know?
> >
>
> How can one respond to the question (and the original one that
> predicated this one) without someone misinterpreting it as
> confrontational, self-serving or condescending?
>
> One issue that was, from all I have been told and heard, is
> that having OOo at some place with a known track record,
> with real FOSS street cred and the ability to work with
> other FOSS organizations as well as commercial entities was
> important. That it wasn't just "getting rid" of OOo but instead
> placing it someplace where it had the best chance to growth,
> thrive and prosper.
>
> I've also been told that Oracle and TDF did discuss moving
> OOo there, but that in addition to some "requirements" that
> were unacceptable, that TDF was still a foundation-in-creation.
> Reading over the blogs, it is even admitted that the complexity
> and time involved in creating one was underestimated. The
> concern was putting the life and longevity of OOo into, basically,
> an unknown quantity.
>


I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who
made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we
naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be
kept, well, off the record. But then if everybody else comes up with his own
version it might be necessary for TDF to bring its own version to the table.


>
> With that in mind, the ASF (or Eclipse) is much different. We've
> been a foundation since 1999, and an active force since 1994. We
> have a legal structure, a non-profit 501(c)3 status, existing
> infrastructure, a healthy fundraising effort, a methodology and
> governance model that is copied and well respected, and a proven track
> record of building exceptional FOSS projects and communities.
>
> There are *obvious* things that, with OOo in mind, the ASF lacks
> that TDF has in spades: the build and distribution system is the
> one which has been mentioned most of all. There are things that
> the TDF lacks that the ASF has in spades. I don't see why we can't
> work together to use each other to fill in the holes that the
> other lacks.
>

I think I have expressed myself -and so did TDF- on our interest to work
with ASF. We are discussing terms, and also how the general discussion is
framed. But this being said I also do feel we're making progress, aren't we?


>
> P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep
> the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the
> OOo space, it is not "just" the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*.
>

I would rephrase this in a different way. This is Free Sofware, TDF's
mission is to replace the "OOo space" with the "LibreOffice space", and yes
there are other players, but I feel that's somewhat obvious.  :)

Best,
Charles.;


>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> 
> We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
> have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap
> that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they
> don't even know?
> 

How can one respond to the question (and the original one that
predicated this one) without someone misinterpreting it as
confrontational, self-serving or condescending?

One issue that was, from all I have been told and heard, is
that having OOo at some place with a known track record,
with real FOSS street cred and the ability to work with
other FOSS organizations as well as commercial entities was
important. That it wasn't just "getting rid" of OOo but instead
placing it someplace where it had the best chance to growth,
thrive and prosper.

I've also been told that Oracle and TDF did discuss moving
OOo there, but that in addition to some "requirements" that
were unacceptable, that TDF was still a foundation-in-creation.
Reading over the blogs, it is even admitted that the complexity
and time involved in creating one was underestimated. The
concern was putting the life and longevity of OOo into, basically,
an unknown quantity.

With that in mind, the ASF (or Eclipse) is much different. We've
been a foundation since 1999, and an active force since 1994. We
have a legal structure, a non-profit 501(c)3 status, existing
infrastructure, a healthy fundraising effort, a methodology and
governance model that is copied and well respected, and a proven track
record of building exceptional FOSS projects and communities.

There are *obvious* things that, with OOo in mind, the ASF lacks
that TDF has in spades: the build and distribution system is the
one which has been mentioned most of all. There are things that
the TDF lacks that the ASF has in spades. I don't see why we can't
work together to use each other to fill in the holes that the
other lacks.

P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep
the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the
OOo space, it is not "just" the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

["Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hello Robert,

2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger
> <fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
>
> Hi Florian
>
> (Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)
>

Did I send you a reply off-list? Damned phone...


>
> > I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted
> to
> > join in here:
>
> Just like the rest of us :-)
>
> Noisy and open - everyone with an opinion is welcome :-)
>
> > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14:
> >>
> >> The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
> >> copyright or code today. Apache is.
> >
> > Why?
>
> AIUI [1] the TDF is not a legal entity today and is still in the
> process of building it's legal, organisational and process
> infrastructure.  I accept it has strong legal backing but today no
> (related) US non-profit corporation exists which could accept the
> donation.
>


2 comments here: 1) actually TDF has an existing legal entity at its core,
and it's a german association. 2) why a US non profit?

>
> The Apache Software Foundation provides a suitable legal no-profit
> organisation and in place today a suitable process to accept large
> donations of code from major organisations safely through the
> Incubator. It has considerable experience of opening close source
> projects and in working with rich downstream ecologies.
>
> > Can you elaborate?
>
> IMHO LibreOffice community finds itself in a similar position to the
> Apache group in the mid-90s. Great community. Fantastic momentum. Cool
> product.
>
> But establishing code provenance and the Apache Software Foundation
> (ASF) took a(n unexpectedly) large amount of time and energy.
> Establishing suitable licenses and agreements took time and energy
> over several iterations. Establishing a sound Incubation process took
> time and energy over many iterations. It took time for us to learn and
> evolve secure processes which don't completely suck.
>
> The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
> and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an
> alternative path might achieve their aims faster...
>


We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap
that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they
don't even know?

Best,
Charles.



>
> Robert
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTi=AY5PM-XVCVBxxJwJ0EqQQPwwWug@mail.gmail.com%3E
>

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Robert,

Hi Florian

(Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)

> I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to
> join in here:

Just like the rest of us :-)

Noisy and open - everyone with an opinion is welcome :-)

> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14:
>>
>> The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
>> copyright or code today. Apache is.
>
> Why?

AIUI [1] the TDF is not a legal entity today and is still in the
process of building it's legal, organisational and process
infrastructure.  I accept it has strong legal backing but today no
(related) US non-profit corporation exists which could accept the
donation.

The Apache Software Foundation provides a suitable legal no-profit
organisation and in place today a suitable process to accept large
donations of code from major organisations safely through the
Incubator. It has considerable experience of opening close source
projects and in working with rich downstream ecologies.

> Can you elaborate?

IMHO LibreOffice community finds itself in a similar position to the
Apache group in the mid-90s. Great community. Fantastic momentum. Cool
product.

But establishing code provenance and the Apache Software Foundation
(ASF) took a(n unexpectedly) large amount of time and energy.
Establishing suitable licenses and agreements took time and energy
over several iterations. Establishing a sound Incubation process took
time and energy over many iterations. It took time for us to learn and
evolve secure processes which don't completely suck.

The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an
alternative path might achieve their aims faster...

Robert

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTi=AY5PM-XVCVBxxJwJ0EqQQPwwWug@mail.gmail.com%3E

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hi Robert,

I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted 
to join in here:

Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14:
> The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
> copyright or code today. Apache is.

Why? Can you elaborate?

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
<ch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Charles

<snip>

> I'm saying that in the real world,
> LibreOffice has happened and that Openoffice being given to Apache is odd

The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
copyright or code today. Apache is.

> and not the best thing that could have happened.

Only time will tell...

Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Charles H. Schulz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Oracle's move with OO.o will fully open the project to all participants
> > and use-cases, including those who might previously have had to enter
> > into alternate, paid, licensing arrangements with the copyright holder.

> And it comes with arrangements that create issues.

Elaborate, please.  :-)

	--- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

["Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hello Noel,

2011/6/2 Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com>

> Florian Effenberger wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > If there is a community split, that decision will rest solely on those
> > > who choose not to join our all-inclusive environment.
>
> > So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is
> > our (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator
> > project do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault.
>
> > This looks like a rather one-sided view to me.
>
> Look on the positive side, and realize that this is a huge opportunity to
> reunite the community.  That's how *I* choose to view it.  That is how Jim,
> Jukka and Andreas also appear to view it.  Charles Schulz also seems to
> concur that were OO.o's transfer to the ASF have happened right off the
> bat,
> we wouldn't be debating the point.  I'm sure that we're not alone, despite
> the fact that we all might wish that this had happened long ago.
>


You misunderstood me, I think: I'm saying that in the real world,
LibreOffice has happened and that Openoffice being given to Apache is odd
and not the best thing that could have happened.


>
> Charles says that he doesn't want to "enter a debate on licensing."  But
> licensing is an elephant in the room.  Oracle's move with OO.o will fully
> open the project to all participants and use-cases, including those who
> might previously have had to enter into alternate, paid, licensing
> arrangements with the copyright holder.
>


And it comes with arrangements that create issues.

Best,
Charles.



>
>        --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Florian Effenberger wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > If there is a community split, that decision will rest solely on those
> > who choose not to join our all-inclusive environment.

> So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is
> our (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator
> project do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault.

> This looks like a rather one-sided view to me.

Look on the positive side, and realize that this is a huge opportunity to
reunite the community.  That's how *I* choose to view it.  That is how Jim,
Jukka and Andreas also appear to view it.  Charles Schulz also seems to
concur that were OO.o's transfer to the ASF have happened right off the bat,
we wouldn't be debating the point.  I'm sure that we're not alone, despite
the fact that we all might wish that this had happened long ago.

Charles says that he doesn't want to "enter a debate on licensing."  But
licensing is an elephant in the room.  Oracle's move with OO.o will fully
open the project to all participants and use-cases, including those who
might previously have had to enter into alternate, paid, licensing
arrangements with the copyright holder.

	--- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hello,

as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other 
messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented:

Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
> If there is a community split, that
> decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our all-inclusive
> environment.

So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is 
our (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator 
project do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault.

This looks like a rather one-sided view to me.

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

First off, as we've seen with other projects that have gone through
Incubation, we have not chosen to avoid areas where others have projects.
Simply put, if there is interest from a community, we seek to be supportive.

If this proposal goes through, and the ASF chooses to incubate OO.o,
everyone will be welcomed.  The TDF, individually or en masse, can consider
whether or not to join the project.  If there is a community split, that
decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our all-inclusive
environment.  Personally, I would wholeheartedly welcome the TDF joining in
on the project.  This need not be a miss opportunity to re-unite; it is
STILL an opportunity to reunite.

	--- Noel



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote on 06/02/2011 
06:39:12 AM:

 
> This would not only be about reinventing the wheel, but also about 
> splitting the community, leading to disadvantages for end-users, 
> contributors, and enterprises.
> 

I'd like to challenge your assertion here, about "splitting the 
community", a nonsensical meme I'm hearing repeated in several venues.

First, would you disagree if I asserted, as a fact, that IBM is not a 
member of LibreOffice?  And that neither is Oracle?  And that no initial 
contributors currently on the wiki are TDF/LinbreOffice coders?

I think it would hard for you, or anyone else, to dispute these facts. 

So we're not in fact splitting the community, since the proposers of this 
proposal, and the proposed initial committers of this project are not 
actually LibreOffice members. 

But at the same time, I think we would all freely acknowledge, that if 
this Apache project is approved, that some existing LibreOffice members 
might, of their own free will and according to their own personal 
preferences, make the **choice** to come and work at Apache.  I don't 
think Apache can prevent this and still be Apache.  If you want to refer 
to this as "splitting the community", then I'd say that an idiosyncratic 
use of the term. 

I'd like to think that LibreOffice has certain characteristics that make 
it a preferred option for some developers, e.g., for those who prefer a 
copyleft license, and prefer to be relatively independent of formal 
governance.  For those for whom these qualities are a priority, they will 
clearly **have the choice** to remain, of their own free will and in 
accordance with their personal preference. 

I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because 
they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being 
antagonistic.  If truly 100% of the LibreOffice members prefer TDF to 
Apache, then you have nothing to worry about, right?  If some prefer 
Apache, then you have worries, if you choose to worry about such things, 
but I don't take it as a moral fault in Apache or in the authors of this 
proposal that we are offering an open source development choice that some 
developers might prefer over TDF.

I think we can all point to many smaller such projects in this area that 
have thrived over the years based on community volunteers, with relatively 
little corporate backing, e.g., AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc.  There is nothing 
wrong with this.  They are fine projects and have many unique qualities. 
But at at the same time, it is perfectly reasonable for others to have 
more ambitious goals, the goal of bringing this code base to scale in the 
market,  a goal that can best (IMHO) be reached with strong corporate 
backing, working side-by-side with independent developers,  facilitated by 
a permissive license and an foundation of unimpeachable reputation and 
stability.  It is entirely reasonable for us to decline to gamble on a 
fledging organization with relatively little evidence of stability. 

No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything.  You are free to 
disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say, 
"No thanks" without suggesting that it is immoral for anyone else, 
including your own members, to say "Yes please". Let's not argue for 
freedom by denying it to others.

Regards,

-Rob



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

I think this is a diversion. 

We all know the press will choose the single sentence that will create the most traffic. It doesn't matter if this pro or anti foo, they just want traffic. 

Let's just assume nobody intended any malice. The journalists want us to fight, it makes for better stories. 

Let's focus on solving real problems not worrying about ones that are not there. 

Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)

On 4 Jun 2011, at 15:25, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:

> On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>> However I
>>>>>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
>>>>>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
>>>>>> 2.0 is an appropriate choice:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code
>>>>> expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for
>>>>> example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm
>>>>> this.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF.  Search the
>>>> gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase "widespread use of
>>>> the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the
>>>> Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice"
>>> 
>>> Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent.
>> 
>> Please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> I've not and I won't. Please chill.
> 
>> 
>> I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context.
> 
> That's not denying my assertion. I also encourage people to read FSF Board member Bradley Kuhn's clarifications:
> 
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18558
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18807
> 
> 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: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>> However I
>>>>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
>>>>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
>>>>> 2.0 is an appropriate choice:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
>>>> 
>>>> Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code
>>>> expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for
>>>> example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm
>>>> this.
>>> 
>>> I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF.  Search the
>>> gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase "widespread use of
>>> the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the
>>> Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice"
>> 
>> Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent.
> 
> Please don't put words in my mouth.

I've not and I won't. Please chill.

> 
> I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context.

That's not denying my assertion. I also encourage people to read FSF Board member Bradley Kuhn's clarifications:

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18558
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18807

S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

RE: OpenOffice and the ASF

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

Quoting the full context for "these" at <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html>:

"The second is projects that implement free standards that are competing against proprietary standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do.

"In these special situations where copyleft is not appropriate, we recommend the Apache License 2.0. ... "

Considering that OO.o (and LibreOffice) support the ODF 1.0/1.1 OASIS Standards and the IS 26300:2006 International standards (with the ODF 1.2 Standard wrapping up), there is some interesting context that I hadn't noticed before.

This also fits the notion of figuring out a multi-layered reference implementation that covers at least the demonstration of a framework for processing the OpenDocument Format as well as those standards that ODF relies upon by reference or selective mimicry (i.e., under ODF namespaces using common local names and related semantics).

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: sa3ruby@gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cBANLkTimh6agHcav1BDH1vnCm7ATeOBhz5A@mail.gmail.com%3e>
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 05:19
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[ ... ]

I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context.

> 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: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>> However I
>>>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
>>>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
>>>> 2.0 is an appropriate choice:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
>>>
>>> Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code
>>> expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for
>>> example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm
>>> this.
>>
>> I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF.  Search the
>> gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase "widespread use of
>> the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the
>> Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice"
>
> Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context.

> S.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> However I
>>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
>>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
>>> 2.0 is an appropriate choice:
>>> 
>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
>> 
>> Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code
>> expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for
>> example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm
>> this.
> 
> I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF.  Search the
> gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase "widespread use of
> the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the
> Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice"


Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent.

S.

> 

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> However I
>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
>> 2.0 is an appropriate choice:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
>
> Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code
> expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for
> example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm
> this.

I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF.  Search the
gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase "widespread use of
the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the
Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice"

> S.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> However I
> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
> 2.0 is an appropriate choice:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code
expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for
example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm
this.

S.

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion. The views shared here
> are not any official TDF statement, but rather solely my own ones, acting as
> a volunteer who has been contributing to the OpenOffice.org project, and now
> the LibreOffice project, since 2004, investing lots of my private time and
> heart into the community.

My hope is that you've appreciated the ample welcome that was provided
for your input at on the ASF mailing lists.  It has been suggested
that we return the favor.  I don't have a lot to say, but I will be
watching this list and will respond to questions.

While this too is not an official ASF statement, as VP of Legal
Affairs for the ASF, I do have a particular focus on license issues.
With that in mind:

> To bring this to an end:
> I seriously doubt that having a separate project, even as incubator, within
> the Apache Foundation, would bring benefit for anyone. The Document
> Foundation has been working for months not only on shaping a project, but
> also on shaping solid grounds to work on, providing the legal framework, and
> our open, meritocratic and transparent approach ensures that anyone --
> individuals, organizations and businesses -- can contribute to the future.

I do believe that a choice in license affects this statement.  To be
clear there is no license that satisfies the above statement.  Nor am
I going to ask anyone to change their choice in licenses.  However I
will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
2.0 is an appropriate choice:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

[Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>]

Hello,

I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion. The views shared 
here are not any official TDF statement, but rather solely my own ones, 
acting as a volunteer who has been contributing to the OpenOffice.org 
project, and now the LibreOffice project, since 2004, investing lots of 
my private time and heart into the community.

I don't want to repeat what has been said -- e.g. in our blog at 
http://blog.documentfoundation.org -- about the history of the 
LibreOffice project, about why it was shaped, about how much it has 
grown over the past months, as I think you very well know them, but 
moreover want to reply to some of the questions and topics mentioned on 
this list already.

Being one of the people involved in creating The Document Foundation, it 
comes to no surprise that I think that having the OpenOffice.org project 
as incubator within Apache would further the division of the community. 
However, contrary to what I have read in some places, the reason behind 
this is not that I would like to be in the driver's seat and having a 
say, so let me elaborate a bit on a few aspects that I think are 
important to get outlined:

First, I truly appreciate the open discussion going on here, as well as 
the notification Jim sent us. I do very much respect the Apache 
Foundation for what it has done, for what it is doing, and also 
personally, I join the feelings the TDF issued in their recent statement 
saying that getting OpenOffice.org to the Apache Foundation as an 
independent entity is an important step.

Second, I do not object at all on cooperating with organizations and 
corporations. In fact, and that's also what TDF has been saying from the 
first day on, a vivid and healthy ecosystem is important to further the 
growth. I am not as naive that I would believe that corporate involvment 
is bad, because individual volunteers can contribute hand in hand with 
corporations. That is what TDF has been proclaiming ever since: We are 
of course working with corporations, but we are not depending on any 
single entity.

The community has gone through hard times. Oracle buying Sun, 
uncertainities, issues and troubles, in the end leading to a majority -- 
and given the activity on the public OpenOffice.org mailing lists I 
indeed do say that we are talking about a majority over at TDF -- 
setting up TDF. From day one we all knew it would not be an easy path, 
but demands a lot of time, work and dedication to make happen what we 
have been dreaming of for so long. I'm still thrilled by what we have 
achieved so far, and every day, the project proves once again how 
capable and grown up it already is.

I do not question the intentions of the Apache Foundation, neither do I 
doubt that it would be a good home for the proposed open source project. 
However: With The Document Foundation, we already have created 
processes, have an up and running infrastructure, have given ourselves 
bylaws, have a release cycle, stable versions, groups dedicating their 
mind and creativity to development, QA, user experience, localisation, 
marketing, website, user support or design. We have been working hard 
since last September to make all of that happen. I do not say that 
everything is perfect, but expecting that from anyone, even a 
well-established Foundation, would be irrational. The task we have taken 
is huge, so nothing can be 100% perfect for anyone in such a short 
period of time.

Some opinions state that Apache would be a safe home, as it has a track 
history of successful projects, is well established and has running 
processes. I have read about doubts that our infrastructure would be 
enough, I have read issues about stability and safety within TDF, and I 
have heard assumptions of us being not a good bet. I think the events of 
the last months prove the opposite. Not only did we manage to get up to 
93.000 EUR in donations already -- 50.000 EUR of them in just eight days 
--, which proves that there is a large public interest in what we do, 
but we managed to set up processes, infrastructure and a vivid, strong 
project in just a short glimpse of time.

Yes, The Document Foundation does not exist yet as a legal entity, and a 
few people have pointed out to that. This does not mean, however, we 
have no strong legal backing. We are an associate project of SPI, and we 
are legally backed by the German association "Freies Office Deutschland 
e.V.", formerly known as "OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V.", which has 
been in existance since 2004, organizing major parts of the German 
community work, sponsoring international conferences, being in permanent 
contact with major business and governmental stakeholders, and regularly 
organizing a "Business and Administration Congress". We (I am a member 
of the Board of Directors there) are not just a small, unknown 
association, but we are a strong player and long supporter.

In addition, the setting up of the legal entity is just at the 
doorsteps. After identifying the ideal federal states within Germany, we 
not only have the Community Bylaws, worked on in open collaboration with 
the project, but also have nearly finalized the legal statutes required 
for setting up the Foundation. Yes, this process took a long time, maybe 
too long, but given that we needed to incorporate our membership idea 
legally, that time has been very wisely spent. Of course, large 
corporations with a large legal department might have done that in a 
much shorter period of time; but then, I am missing offers for help from 
that sphere. Given we did all on our own, I think the results so far are 
astonishing. And after all, everyone started small -- this is no shame, 
but the opposite: Starting small and growing big is something we can be 
very proud of.

People may question the location of the foundation inside Germany, but 
we have had an open discussion for several months, where everyone could 
participate. In addition, our donors proved us right, by donation the 
needed capital stock in just a bit more than a week. Of course, there 
are reasons for and against Germany, but I doubt there is an ideal 
solution -- and the wide support not only of the community, but of all 
the donors worldwide prove that we have taken the right decision.

To bring this to an end:
I seriously doubt that having a separate project, even as incubator, 
within the Apache Foundation, would bring benefit for anyone. The 
Document Foundation has been working for months not only on shaping a 
project, but also on shaping solid grounds to work on, providing the 
legal framework, and our open, meritocratic and transparent approach 
ensures that anyone -- individuals, organizations and businesses -- can 
contribute to the future.

I see no justified reasons of having the same efforts in parallel.

This would not only be about reinventing the wheel, but also about 
splitting the community, leading to disadvantages for end-users, 
contributors, and enterprises.

As said, and I like to state this personally here, too: We have been and 
are always open for feedback, criticism, discussions, and people joining 
us. I do not say that everything is 100% perfect as it is today, but I 
can only repeat the invitation to join us.

While I am sure that we could have good relationships with the Apache 
Foundation and cooperate, I have the fear that everything I personally 
worked on, shaped, helped to grow, would be due to split into two 
projects. In the end, this would not help anyone, but rather lead to 
friction loss, reinventing the wheel and irritating the market at large.

So, my honest and open question is indeed: Why would the Apache 
Foundation be a much better home than The Document Foundation is? What, 
besides already being legally established, is it that Apache has, what 
The Document Foundation does not provide? What would prevent large 
organizations of working with us?

To the representatives of IBM and Oracle, what is it that hinders you 
from working with TDF? Why do you think a project at the Apache 
Foundation fits so much better? Why do you think that setting things up 
again nearly from zero are so much better than investing to what has 
been shaped by the larger community for the last months?

This is not at all a rhetorical question. I am indeed keen on hearing 
replies, and be assured I give my best to reply openly to them.

Any constructive feedback on this is highly appreciated, and as much as 
I invite anyone to join us in our efforts, I invite anyone to join this 
discussion. I am available on the TDF mailing lists, but also 
personally, for any discussion.

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Louis Suarez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>]

On 2011-06-02, at 01:02 , robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Louis Suarez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/01/2011 09:41:08 
> PM:
> 
>> 
>> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
>> * We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good 
>> purposes. We grant these, with minimal fuss and have set up systems 
>> to do that more efficiently. With the change in trademark ownership—
>> if?—the situation will naturally change. I'd like some clarity on that.
>> 
> 
> Hi Louis, I'm glad to hear from you.
> 
> If I understand your question correctly, we really need to understand 
> three things:
> 
> 1) What things did OpenOffice derivative projects do with the 
> OpenOffice.org trademark when Sun/Oracle owned the trademark, things that 
> we want to perpetuate under Apache?

Derivative projects has legal meaning. In the case of those which Sun or Oracle owned, then it hardly matters. In the case of IBM's Symphony, you tell me. In the case of others: again, if there were special agreements between Sun/Oracle and the contracting party, then the special agreement speaks for itself.  

My question related to the common allowance of OpenOffice.org trademark use. Example: you want to declare that you use OpenOffice.org and so ask us (OOo) if you can paste the trademarked logo on your Web site. Well, in the old days—yesterday? Today?—you'd fill in a form found on the OOo site and probably be granted permission, by Oracle.

Well. That's the problem: By Whom, now? As Greg pointed out, these be early days and though the latter days will show clearer ways, for now, it's kind of murky.

> 
> and
> 
> 2) In the ordinarily case, what use of Apache project related trademarks 
> are allowed to other projects/products based on Apache project code?
> 
> and
> 
> 3) What do we do if 1 and 2 conflict, e.g., if Sun/Oracle were more 
> permissive than Apache is.

I'm interested in expanding the market for ODF and resolving anxieties the community and ecosystem (not much of a difference)  may have. I'm also really interested in ensuring that users are not surprised by faux versions of code produced via the New Order :-) and calling itself "OpenOffice.org'. My impression is that if it comes from the OpenOffice.org site, as at present, then more or less status quo: OOo continues to police its identity. But…..
> 
> 
> I think this needs to start with understanding #1.  For example, did 
> anyone historically have a legitimate need to rebuild/repackage OpenOffice 
> outside of the Apache project and still call it "OpenOffice" (unadorned)? 
> My gut feeling is that would be dangerous.
> 

nod.


> 
>> * Similarly, OOo is more than a developer community; it's also a 
>> shifting set of globally dispersed ecosystems built around the 
>> primary application and concerned with the usual open source 
>> matters—support, education, training, services, migration, etc. I've
>> worked hard to help set many of these up, and to establish the 
>> ecosystems, so that there is a real market for the ODF and OOo, as 
>> well as its relatives.  What now?
>> 
> 
> I've tried to give a sense of the richness of this in the "community" 
> section of the proposal on the wiki.  I think you will be able to improve 
> it, based on your experience.  But we probably don't need a tome on it.
> 
> But to your question, I think the ideal solution is to attract the right 
> people.  This is easier and more effective than recreating an ecosystem. 
> And to attract the right people we need to show them how working in Apache 
> can make them more effective.
> 
> There are also some technical things we can do to make this easier, in 
> terms of packaging, extension points, etc.  And as was discussed earlier 
> in the thread, the Apache 2.0 license encourages reuse and sharing, and 
> thus facilitates the kind of ecosystem we want.
> 
>> Finally, I'll call a special OpenOffice.org Community Council (what 
>> is left of it, if any) to go over the quite significant (as in 
>> totally tectonic) change. We—the OOo community, basically—really do 
>> want and even need to understand the Quo of the Vadis:  what we are 
>> doing henceforth, where we are going.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Excellent.  I look forward to hearing how that meeting goes.

If. 
> 
> -Rob

best
Louis


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[ro...@us.ibm.com]

Louis Suarez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/01/2011 09:41:08 
PM:

> 
> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
> * We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good 
> purposes. We grant these, with minimal fuss and have set up systems 
> to do that more efficiently. With the change in trademark ownership—
> if?—the situation will naturally change. I'd like some clarity on that.
> 

Hi Louis, I'm glad to hear from you.

If I understand your question correctly, we really need to understand 
three things:

1) What things did OpenOffice derivative projects do with the 
OpenOffice.org trademark when Sun/Oracle owned the trademark, things that 
we want to perpetuate under Apache?

and

2) In the ordinarily case, what use of Apache project related trademarks 
are allowed to other projects/products based on Apache project code?

and

3) What do we do if 1 and 2 conflict, e.g., if Sun/Oracle were more 
permissive than Apache is.


I think this needs to start with understanding #1.  For example, did 
anyone historically have a legitimate need to rebuild/repackage OpenOffice 
outside of the Apache project and still call it "OpenOffice" (unadorned)? 
My gut feeling is that would be dangerous.


> * Similarly, OOo is more than a developer community; it's also a 
> shifting set of globally dispersed ecosystems built around the 
> primary application and concerned with the usual open source 
> matters—support, education, training, services, migration, etc. I've
> worked hard to help set many of these up, and to establish the 
> ecosystems, so that there is a real market for the ODF and OOo, as 
> well as its relatives.  What now?
> 

I've tried to give a sense of the richness of this in the "community" 
section of the proposal on the wiki.  I think you will be able to improve 
it, based on your experience.  But we probably don't need a tome on it.

But to your question, I think the ideal solution is to attract the right 
people.  This is easier and more effective than recreating an ecosystem. 
And to attract the right people we need to show them how working in Apache 
can make them more effective.

There are also some technical things we can do to make this easier, in 
terms of packaging, extension points, etc.  And as was discussed earlier 
in the thread, the Apache 2.0 license encourages reuse and sharing, and 
thus facilitates the kind of ecosystem we want.

> Finally, I'll call a special OpenOffice.org Community Council (what 
> is left of it, if any) to go over the quite significant (as in 
> totally tectonic) change. We—the OOo community, basically—really do 
> want and even need to understand the Quo of the Vadis:  what we are 
> doing henceforth, where we are going.
> 
> 

Excellent.  I look forward to hearing how that meeting goes.

-Rob

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>]

On Jun 1, 2011, at 10:58 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 6/1/2011 8:41 PM, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
>> 
>> My questions then are absolutely pragmatic and relate—hence the to post—to issues not so far discussed:
>> 
>> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
>> * We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good purposes. We grant these, with minimal fuss and have set up systems to do that more efficiently. With the change in trademark ownership—if?—the situation will naturally change. I'd like some clarity on that.
> 
> If the grant is accepted, AIUI, yes TM transfer would be expected.
> 

The trademark xfer is part of the grant.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org>]

On 6/1/2011 8:41 PM, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
> 
> My questions then are absolutely pragmatic and relate—hence the to post—to issues not so far discussed:
> 
> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
> * We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good purposes. We grant these, with minimal fuss and have set up systems to do that more efficiently. With the change in trademark ownership—if?—the situation will naturally change. I'd like some clarity on that.

If the grant is accepted, AIUI, yes TM transfer would be expected.

Please review http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ for how such things
are handled.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 21:41, Louis Suarez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
>
> [snip] I'm sure our legal folks can get that
> cleared up, should OOo be accepted into the Incubator, as part of the
> regular incubation process.

+1

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 21:41, Louis Suarez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2011-06-01, at 20:18 , Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> [cc'ing Italo and Louis hopefully they have joined the incubator list already, but just in case]
>
> Thanks. I actually have already joined it.
> So, to the list: Wave of hand signifying hello!

Hey, Louis ... been a while :-)

>...
> My questions then are absolutely pragmatic and relate—hence the to post—to issues not so far discussed:
>
> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?

Not yet, but it looks like we have the rights to use it. If OOo
graduates from the Incubator, then I believe we'd want to ask for a
formal transfer (eg. with the USPTO and others) to the Foundation. I
guess we could do it beforehand, to unburden it from Oracle, even if
we ended up not using it and transferring it to another 501(c)3. The
language in the grant is a bit unclear to me, so my best answer is
"yeah, it looks like we can use it, and could do a formal transfer tho
that hasn't happened (yet)." I'm sure our legal folks can get that
cleared up, should OOo be accepted into the Incubator, as part of the
regular incubation process.

Note that there is another question of whether and how the ASF would
use the mark. The community might want to call it "Apache Office", for
all I know, and the OOo trademark wouldn't be useful. (tho it seems a
terrible shame given its recognition and goodwill)

> * We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good purposes. We grant these, with minimal fuss and have set up systems to do that more efficiently. With the change in trademark ownership—if?—the situation will naturally change. I'd like some clarity on that.

As above, I believe we'd have to get that cleared up during
incubation. I believe Oracle's *intent* is to transfer it to the ASF.

> * Similarly, OOo is more than a developer community; it's also a shifting set of globally dispersed ecosystems built around the primary application and concerned with the usual open source matters—support, education, training, services, migration, etc. I've worked hard to help set many of these up, and to establish the ecosystems, so that there is a real market for the ODF and OOo, as well as its relatives.  What now?

These kinds of things are for the community. The ASF itself doesn't
really care, to be honest :-)  Most ASF communities do have ecosystems
like this, but the Foundation doesn't really involve itself in that.

I think what I'm trying to say, is that it doesn't really have to change.

>...

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Sophie Gautier <ga...@gmail.com>]

Hi Shane
On 05/06/2011 14:53, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Sophie Gautier wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I've got the BOPI for France if you're interested in.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Sophie
>
> Yes, please. If anyone has direct links to specific registration numbers
> and where they're held of either "OpenOffice.org" (which we're talking
> about here) or "Open Office" (which some other organizations have in at
> least Europe) they'd be very helpful. I posted a link to the Benelux
> registration of "Open Office" by that company in the Netherlands.
>
> The best place to send those is trademarks@apache.org, a privately
> archived list where we organize trademark policy for the ASF.

Done.
Kind regards
Sophie
-- 
Founding and Steering Committee member of The Document Foundation

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Res: Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Jomar Silva <ho...@gmail.com>]

I'll try to clarify that with the people involved with the project at that time.

Best,

Jomar
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:18:06 
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

I'm aware that Sun successfully challenged a problematic third party
registration in Brazil just as the acquisition was going through. It may be
worth early investigation in case the registration on Sun's behalf was not
then completed; OOo had serious issues in Brazil over many years because of
it.

{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 5, 2011 12:53 PM, "Shane Curcuru" <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Sophie Gautier wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> On 05/06/2011 10:06, Julien Vermillard wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcuru<as...@shanecurcuru.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
>>>> ...snip...
>>>>>
>>>>> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
>>>>
>>>> ...snip...
>>>>
>>>> The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark
>>>> along with
>>>> a specific list of source code files.
>>>>
>>>> I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the
>>>> ASF
>>>> yet (i.e. legal documents officially transferring ownership within
>>>> the USPTO
>>>> here in the US).
>>>>
>>>> As best I understand, the ASF does not currently own the trademark,
>>>> but the
>>>> intent of both Oracle and the ASF is that the trademark will be
>>>> transferred
>>>> to the ASF once the appropriate legal paperwork is completed. I
>>>> presume,
>>>> and will follow up, to ensure this includes the graphical logo with the
>>>> seagulls.
>>>>
>>>> Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of
>>>> "OpenOffice.org" or
>>>> the logo or other related marks in other countries besides the US?
>>>>
>>>> - Shane Curcuru
>>>> VP, Brand Management, The Apache Software Foundation
>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>>>>
>>>> For those interested:
>>>> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78581289
>>>> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77021413
>>>>
>>> Hi
>>> I found it in the E.U. database, look like it's registered (with the
>>> logo).
>>> You can check there searching "openoffice" (can't paste result url..) :
>>>
>>> http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/basicSearch.html
>>>
>>> http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic
>>
>> I've got the BOPI for France if you're interested in.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Sophie
>
> Yes, please. If anyone has direct links to specific registration
> numbers and where they're held of either "OpenOffice.org" (which we're
> talking about here) or "Open Office" (which some other organizations
> have in at least Europe) they'd be very helpful. I posted a link to the
> Benelux registration of "Open Office" by that company in the Netherlands.
>
> The best place to send those is trademarks@apache.org, a privately
> archived list where we organize trademark policy for the ASF.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Shane
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

I'm aware that Sun successfully challenged a problematic third party
registration in Brazil just as the acquisition was going through. It may be
worth early investigation in case the registration on Sun's behalf was not
then completed; OOo had serious issues in Brazil over many years because of
it.

{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 5, 2011 12:53 PM, "Shane Curcuru" <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Sophie Gautier wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> On 05/06/2011 10:06, Julien Vermillard wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcuru<as...@shanecurcuru.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
>>>> ...snip...
>>>>>
>>>>> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
>>>>
>>>> ...snip...
>>>>
>>>> The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark
>>>> along with
>>>> a specific list of source code files.
>>>>
>>>> I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the
>>>> ASF
>>>> yet (i.e. legal documents officially transferring ownership within
>>>> the USPTO
>>>> here in the US).
>>>>
>>>> As best I understand, the ASF does not currently own the trademark,
>>>> but the
>>>> intent of both Oracle and the ASF is that the trademark will be
>>>> transferred
>>>> to the ASF once the appropriate legal paperwork is completed. I
>>>> presume,
>>>> and will follow up, to ensure this includes the graphical logo with the
>>>> seagulls.
>>>>
>>>> Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of
>>>> "OpenOffice.org" or
>>>> the logo or other related marks in other countries besides the US?
>>>>
>>>> - Shane Curcuru
>>>> VP, Brand Management, The Apache Software Foundation
>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>>>>
>>>> For those interested:
>>>> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78581289
>>>> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77021413
>>>>
>>> Hi
>>> I found it in the E.U. database, look like it's registered (with the
>>> logo).
>>> You can check there searching "openoffice" (can't paste result url..) :
>>>
>>> http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/basicSearch.html
>>>
>>> http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic
>>
>> I've got the BOPI for France if you're interested in.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Sophie
>
> Yes, please. If anyone has direct links to specific registration
> numbers and where they're held of either "OpenOffice.org" (which we're
> talking about here) or "Open Office" (which some other organizations
> have in at least Europe) they'd be very helpful. I posted a link to the
> Benelux registration of "Open Office" by that company in the Netherlands.
>
> The best place to send those is trademarks@apache.org, a privately
> archived list where we organize trademark policy for the ASF.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Shane
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>]

Sophie Gautier wrote:
> Hi all,
> On 05/06/2011 10:06, Julien Vermillard wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcuru<as...@shanecurcuru.org>  
>> wrote:
>>> Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
>>> ...snip...
>>>>
>>>> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
>>>
>>> ...snip...
>>>
>>> The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark 
>>> along with
>>> a specific list of source code files.
>>>
>>> I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the 
>>> ASF
>>> yet (i.e. legal documents officially transferring ownership within 
>>> the USPTO
>>> here in the US).
>>>
>>> As best I understand, the ASF does not currently own the trademark, 
>>> but the
>>> intent of both Oracle and the ASF is that the trademark will be 
>>> transferred
>>> to the ASF once the appropriate legal paperwork is completed.  I 
>>> presume,
>>> and will follow up, to ensure this includes the graphical logo with the
>>> seagulls.
>>>
>>> Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of 
>>> "OpenOffice.org" or
>>> the logo or other related marks in other countries besides the US?
>>>
>>> - Shane Curcuru
>>>   VP, Brand Management, The Apache Software Foundation
>>>   http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>>>
>>> For those interested:
>>> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78581289
>>> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77021413
>>>
>> Hi
>> I found it in the E.U. database, look like it's registered (with the 
>> logo).
>> You can check there searching "openoffice" (can't paste result url..) :
>>
>> http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/basicSearch.html
>>
>> http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic
> 
> I've got the BOPI for France if you're interested in.
> 
> Kind regards
> Sophie

Yes, please.   If anyone has direct links to specific registration 
numbers and where they're held of either "OpenOffice.org" (which we're 
talking about here) or "Open Office" (which some other organizations 
have in at least Europe) they'd be very helpful.  I posted a link to the 
Benelux registration of "Open Office" by that company in the Netherlands.

The best place to send those is trademarks@apache.org, a privately 
archived list where we organize trademark policy for the ASF.

Thanks!

- Shane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Sophie Gautier <ga...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,
On 05/06/2011 10:06, Julien Vermillard wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcuru<as...@shanecurcuru.org>  wrote:
>> Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
>> ...snip...
>>>
>>> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>> The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark along with
>> a specific list of source code files.
>>
>> I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the ASF
>> yet (i.e. legal documents officially transferring ownership within the USPTO
>> here in the US).
>>
>> As best I understand, the ASF does not currently own the trademark, but the
>> intent of both Oracle and the ASF is that the trademark will be transferred
>> to the ASF once the appropriate legal paperwork is completed.  I presume,
>> and will follow up, to ensure this includes the graphical logo with the
>> seagulls.
>>
>> Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of "OpenOffice.org" or
>> the logo or other related marks in other countries besides the US?
>>
>> - Shane Curcuru
>>   VP, Brand Management, The Apache Software Foundation
>>   http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>>
>> For those interested:
>> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78581289
>> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77021413
>>
> Hi
> I found it in the E.U. database, look like it's registered (with the logo).
> You can check there searching "openoffice" (can't paste result url..) :
>
> http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/basicSearch.html
>
> http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic

I've got the BOPI for France if you're interested in.

Kind regards
Sophie
-- 
Founding and Steering Committee member of The Document Foundation

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Julien Vermillard <jv...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
> ...snip...
>>
>> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
>
> ...snip...
>
> The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark along with
> a specific list of source code files.
>
> I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the ASF
> yet (i.e. legal documents officially transferring ownership within the USPTO
> here in the US).
>
> As best I understand, the ASF does not currently own the trademark, but the
> intent of both Oracle and the ASF is that the trademark will be transferred
> to the ASF once the appropriate legal paperwork is completed.  I presume,
> and will follow up, to ensure this includes the graphical logo with the
> seagulls.
>
> Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of "OpenOffice.org" or
> the logo or other related marks in other countries besides the US?
>
> - Shane Curcuru
>  VP, Brand Management, The Apache Software Foundation
>  http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>
> For those interested:
> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78581289
> http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77021413
>
Hi
I found it in the E.U. database, look like it's registered (with the logo).
You can check there searching "openoffice" (can't paste result url..) :

http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/basicSearch.html

http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic

Julien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Simon Brouwer <si...@xs4all.nl>]

Hi Shane,

Op 5-6-2011 6:11, Shane Curcuru schreef:
> Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of 
> "OpenOffice.org" or the logo or other related marks in other countries 
> besides the US?

The name "Open Office" has been registered in the Benelux by the Dutch 
company Open Office Automatisering since before OpenOffice.org was 
announced, see http://www.openoffice.nl/merkenregistratie

Because of this and similar cases we need taking care to not omit the 
".org" when indicating the project or the product OpenOffice.org.

-- 
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer.

| http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org |


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>]

Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
...snip...
> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
...snip...

The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark along 
with a specific list of source code files.

I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the 
ASF yet (i.e. legal documents officially transferring ownership within 
the USPTO here in the US).

As best I understand, the ASF does not currently own the trademark, but 
the intent of both Oracle and the ASF is that the trademark will be 
transferred to the ASF once the appropriate legal paperwork is 
completed.  I presume, and will follow up, to ensure this includes the 
graphical logo with the seagulls.

Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of "OpenOffice.org" 
or the logo or other related marks in other countries besides the US?

- Shane Curcuru
   VP, Brand Management, The Apache Software Foundation
   http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/

For those interested:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78581289
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77021413

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Louis Suarez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>]

On 2011-06-01, at 20:18 , Ross Gardler wrote:

> [cc'ing Italo and Louis hopefully they have joined the incubator list already, but just in case]

Thanks. I actually have already joined it.  
So, to the list: Wave of hand signifying hello!

And, again, delighted this is moving ahead transparently and openly.

And I would also underscore that with the proposed placement of OOo core (and more?) development within Apache, that a lot of the old problems and procedural issues should evaporate as no longer being relevant.

My questions then are absolutely pragmatic and relate—hence the to post—to issues not so far discussed:

* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
* We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good purposes. We grant these, with minimal fuss and have set up systems to do that more efficiently. With the change in trademark ownership—if?—the situation will naturally change. I'd like some clarity on that.

* Similarly, OOo is more than a developer community; it's also a shifting set of globally dispersed ecosystems built around the primary application and concerned with the usual open source matters—support, education, training, services, migration, etc. I've worked hard to help set many of these up, and to establish the ecosystems, so that there is a real market for the ODF and OOo, as well as its relatives.  What now?

Finally, I'll call a special OpenOffice.org Community Council (what is left of it, if any) to go over the quite significant (as in totally tectonic) change. We—the OOo community, basically—really do want and even need to understand the Quo of the Vadis:  what we are doing henceforth, where we are going.




> 
> On 02/06/2011 01:01, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> More info re TDF and LOo
>> ----- Forwarded message from Italo Vignoli<it...@documentfoundation.org>  -----
>> 
>> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:16:53 +0200
>> From: Italo Vignoli<it...@documentfoundation.org>
>> Reply-To: italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org
>> To: Jim Jagielski<ji...@apache.org>
>> CC: Louis Suarez-Potts<ls...@gmail.com>,
>> 	Sam Ruby<ru...@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
> 
> ...
> 
>> I will also read carefully the proposal, and make my comments. I
>> understand that it might still be improved (correct me if I am wrong,
>> because I have had just a few minutes for going through it, and to me
>> it looks incomplete or too succinct in some areas).
> 
> I agree with this and have asked some questions on the general@incubator. The answers seem perfectly reasonable to me (see below to a link to the main response and the rest of the thread). However, I'm not a part of the TDF or LOo communities so please bring your own, more relevant, questions and suggestions to the incubator list.
> 
>> OOo is a very large project with a very large and diverse community.
>> In my opinion, it would be a pity to lose a percentage of this
>> community because the proposal is not inclusive enough).
> 
> +1
> 
> It's worth reading Robs reply to my question about the limited initial committer list. I felt it indicated a level of inclusion that is not yet fully represented in the proposal (other than this is the ASF and thus by definition inclusive). He said:
> 
> "We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list, developers familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symphony (which is our OpenOffice based project). But then we could have been criticized for the proposal being too dominated by IBM. It is clearly our intent to grow this project, both from our corporate developers, but also by recruiting new members to the project, including developers from related open source projects (see my previous note)" See http://markmail.org/message/qxqplq7rq6nuxorq (the previous note referred to is http://markmail.org/message/esgluawloid64o6r)
> 
> It would be great if you could work with Rob to make the proposal reflect this intention and is, as far as possible, accommodating to the TDF and LOo communities ...
> 
>> I will be away until Sunday, but I will read emails every now and then.
> 
> ... when you get back :-)
> 
> Ross
> 

best
Louis




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

[cc'ing Italo and Louis hopefully they have joined the incubator list 
already, but just in case]

On 02/06/2011 01:01, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> More info re TDF and LOo
> ----- Forwarded message from Italo Vignoli<it...@documentfoundation.org>  -----
>
> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:16:53 +0200
> From: Italo Vignoli<it...@documentfoundation.org>
> Reply-To: italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org
> To: Jim Jagielski<ji...@apache.org>
> CC: Louis Suarez-Potts<ls...@gmail.com>,
> 	Sam Ruby<ru...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

...

> I will also read carefully the proposal, and make my comments. I
> understand that it might still be improved (correct me if I am wrong,
> because I have had just a few minutes for going through it, and to me
> it looks incomplete or too succinct in some areas).

I agree with this and have asked some questions on the 
general@incubator. The answers seem perfectly reasonable to me (see 
below to a link to the main response and the rest of the thread). 
However, I'm not a part of the TDF or LOo communities so please bring 
your own, more relevant, questions and suggestions to the incubator list.

> OOo is a very large project with a very large and diverse community.
> In my opinion, it would be a pity to lose a percentage of this
> community because the proposal is not inclusive enough).

+1

It's worth reading Robs reply to my question about the limited initial 
committer list. I felt it indicated a level of inclusion that is not yet 
fully represented in the proposal (other than this is the ASF and thus 
by definition inclusive). He said:

"We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list, 
developers familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symphony 
(which is our OpenOffice based project). But then we could have been 
criticized for the proposal being too dominated by IBM. It is clearly 
our intent to grow this project, both from our corporate developers, but 
also by recruiting new members to the project, including developers from 
related open source projects (see my previous note)" See 
http://markmail.org/message/qxqplq7rq6nuxorq (the previous note referred 
to is http://markmail.org/message/esgluawloid64o6r)

It would be great if you could work with Rob to make the proposal 
reflect this intention and is, as far as possible, accommodating to the 
TDF and LOo communities ...

> I will be away until Sunday, but I will read emails every now and then.

... when you get back :-)

Ross


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org