You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> on 2011/06/06 18:12:03 UTC
Question to TDF and its community
Dear TDFers,
I was on a long flight and came back to an immense number of mails
here and elsewhere on this topic, so please bear with me if this has
been brought up before, by someone else.
I vaguely recall the fork of OOo into LibreOffice, and if memory
serves me right it was due to escape Oracle's governance/influence, or
something to that extent.
Was it already at that time known that Oracle was going with a liberal
license, and the fork was then a choice based in the ideological
differences in licensing?
If it was not, how would the people who forked then have reacted if
Oracle did then (pre-fork) what they are doing now?
Finally, do you (TDF) thinks it is better that Oracle gives the
codebase, trademarks and other IP-rights to IBM than to Apache? The
way I read the situation, that is the alternative available most
likely to happen in that case, possibly as a fully internal project.
Giving OOo to TDF is something Oracle simply can't do, there is likely
a promise to IBM...
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/24svnvk
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Christoph Jopp <jo...@gmx.de>.
Am 07.06.2011 07:49, schrieb Christian Grobmeier:
>
...
>
> With OOo the company was nasty and people went away and were happy.
> The company wants the project at the ASF, and some people complain
> now.
I think it's far more complex and dates back very long. (see below)
> After all I never really heard the words "I want it at the ASF"
> from somebody with OOo adress -my feeling is it is the ASF which wants
> it most. I might be wrong, the number of e-mails is overwhelming.
>
>
> Also Geronimo is big, but OOo is huge and might give us a good amount
> of headache. When it comes to reputation, as Harmony has gone idle
> they were lots of talks about it in the press. Yes, i think we will
> earn some nasty words when this podling fails.
Yes, I'm also sure that you will get much work and headaches if you
support this proposal and nobody could tell you to do so. Only be
thankful if you did ;-)
The risk for your reputation need not to be so big. I think it mainly
depends on how this is brought forward. As a fully standalone, competing
Apache Office that does not try to collaborate with TDF and TDF not with
it (high risk) - or ... (also see below)
>
> I want a ASL Office, but I share Niclas concerns somehow. I am not
> sure if the TDF should be an entry requirement. I am a bit concerned
> this podling might only incubate because people are attracted by the
> OOo trademark. From the proposal:
> "We believe in the processes, systems, and framework Apache has put in place."
>
> Really? How can we know? There was no real initial team, the OOo
> proposal started with a "call to arms". It seems everybody can get a
> free apache email address at the moment.
>
> I already know the answer - "incubation will show us". If this is the
> answer to everything, then we can start voting now.
>
The problem with the OOo community goes far beyond. As SUN bought
StarDivision and open sourced their software as OpenOffice.org the
imbalance of the community began and never ended.
"Imbalance" because they always "governed" the project as main sponsor
and directed development. As result very few "external" (means not
employed) developers could be attracted. A second result was that
voluntary supporters mainly got involved in "non-code" areas of the
project. I think some even developed the feeling of the community as the
side of the voluntary force and a more and more oponent "corporate"
side. As Oracle stepped in the minefield exploded.
So many bad emotions are still hanging around about who stole what baby
from whom and deep scars and wounds are present.
Amd I think healing the personal wounds is the thing that should happen
outside. But helping to heal the wounds of the community seems to be a
big talent of the Apache people. At least what I saw on the ML the last
few days.
This progress was a sign of hope that got me putting my name on the
committers list.
I see a huge part of the community at TDF and they are all doing a great
job. But still they are not what I learned to know as the whole OOo
community. So parts of the community stay away from TDF due to the
license - mainly the corporate part. But I think there is still a part
of the community that will not (yet or never) join TDF for other
reasons. I don't want to start a big discussion here - so I call these
reasons just wounds.
So my hope is that here could be found some way of
collaboration/"approximation"/someotherword between the up to now
fragmented OOo community under the hood or with help of the Apache
Foundation. But I don't believe all this could happen before the Apache
Foundation is going to vote over the proposal.
So the other possibility to forward "Apache Office" might be to try to
converge the parts of the "old" OpenOffice.org community by ways still
open. For me the idea of a future modular OOo ready to serve LO and all
others sounds good - maybe there are still more ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Simon Brouwer <si...@xs4all.nl>.
Christian Grobmeier schreef:
>> We didn't balk when Geronimo was proposed, despite complaints from
>> JBoss.
>> We didn't balk when Felix (nee Oscar) was proposed. Â We didn't balk in
>> other
>> cases. Â We have never picked winners, we have incubated projects and
>> let the
>> community pick the winners. Â I don't see a reason to change our
>> philosophy
>> now.
>
> Geronimo is not the same case as OOo.
>
> With Geronimo people came and wanted to create it, because they were
> not happy. The company complained.
>
> With OOo the company was nasty and people went away and were happy.
> The company wants the project at the ASF, and some people complain
> now. After all I never really heard the words "I want it at the ASF"
> from somebody with OOo adress
My opinion, as an independent OpenOffice.org community member, is that
OpenOffice.org was, for most of its life, in excellent hands with
Sun/Oracle all things considered. Given that Oracle has decided to pull
away, I think handing it to an open source minded, vendor-neutral, mature,
capable organization such as the ASF will provide it the best
opportunities for continued success.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer
-*- 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: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 7 June 2011 06:49, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
With OOo the company was nasty and people went away and were happy.
> The company wants the project at the ASF, and some people complain
> now. After all I never really heard the words "I want it at the ASF"
> from somebody with OOo adress
I have an OOo address and I want it at Apache for the following reasons.
1. Better to be at Apache than to go somewhere that could be more damaging
to LibreOffice and TDF.
Maybe that sounds illogical to some but it seems sensible to me :-).
2. If I had a first choice it would probably be give it to TDF but I know
that hell will probably freeze before that happens.
3. There are also advantages to the liberal license in proliferation of odf.
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.
Re: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
> We didn't balk when Geronimo was proposed, despite complaints from JBoss.
> We didn't balk when Felix (nee Oscar) was proposed. We didn't balk in other
> cases. We have never picked winners, we have incubated projects and let the
> community pick the winners. I don't see a reason to change our philosophy
> now.
Geronimo is not the same case as OOo.
With Geronimo people came and wanted to create it, because they were
not happy. The company complained.
With OOo the company was nasty and people went away and were happy.
The company wants the project at the ASF, and some people complain
now. After all I never really heard the words "I want it at the ASF"
from somebody with OOo adress -my feeling is it is the ASF which wants
it most. I might be wrong, the number of e-mails is overwhelming.
Also Geronimo is big, but OOo is huge and might give us a good amount
of headache. When it comes to reputation, as Harmony has gone idle
they were lots of talks about it in the press. Yes, i think we will
earn some nasty words when this podling fails.
I want a ASL Office, but I share Niclas concerns somehow. I am not
sure if the TDF should be an entry requirement. I am a bit concerned
this podling might only incubate because people are attracted by the
OOo trademark. From the proposal:
"We believe in the processes, systems, and framework Apache has put in place."
Really? How can we know? There was no real initial team, the OOo
proposal started with a "call to arms". It seems everybody can get a
free apache email address at the moment.
I already know the answer - "incubation will show us". If this is the
answer to everything, then we can start voting now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>.
Hi,
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 2011-06-06 23.10:
> Niclas, several people from TDF/LO, including Florian Effenberger,
> have expressed their wish that the project should be accepted on this
> mailing list. Simple reason: They consider the alternatives (code
> stays within Oracle or whatever else) worse than an OO incubator
> project.
from what I understood, the code grant is already in place, independent
from the incubation process? (I'm really asking, because I lack the
details, but at least that's how I understood it.)
Is the trademark grant tied to the incubation process?
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: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> For the record; I am opposing this contribution and will vote -1,
> unless there is a clear indication that TDF/LO is behind it 100% and
> the two projects are on a trajectory of a merge.
Niclas, several people from TDF/LO, including Florian Effenberger,
have expressed their wish that the project should be accepted on this
mailing list. Simple reason: They consider the alternatives (code
stays within Oracle or whatever else) worse than an OO incubator
project.
Jochen
--
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men
will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of
everyone.
John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
While I respect your right to your opinion, I will disagree that
creating a podling to sort all this out is bad for the org's
reputation (graduation is an entirely different story, but only
time will tell how this plays out). The fact is that we normally
aren't given assets until a podling is accepted, but this case
is exceptional for reasons I'd rather not bore anyone with.
As a practical matter we have no decision-making capability for
managing those assets other than the board, and as we all know
the board operates with very blunt force. The issues at stake
demand far more attention to detail than the board can provide,
and for me that is reason enough to create the podling. If you've
looked over the proposal you will notice a number of people
with ooo.org domain names in their email address, which is
a testament to the fact that at least some portion of the existing
community is willing to tackle these problems collectively under
our roof.
For me Simon's support for the podling creation says a lot about
my confidence in my own support for it, and I hope it helps
convince others of the same. We didn't tell the Geronimo
people to take their issues back to the JBoss community,
even tho JBoss was (and perhaps still is) the dominant FOSS
J2EE player. We let them incubate, and gave them an opportunity
to prove that they deserved to be here. It was the right move
then, and IMO the right move now.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 4:47:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Question to TDF and its community
>
> Thank you both for (what I perceive as) balanced responses, without
> all the noise out there.
>
> For the record; I am opposing this contribution and will vote -1,
> unless there is a clear indication that TDF/LO is behind it 100% and
> the two projects are on a trajectory of a merge. I don't want to see
> Apache involved in prolonging or extending this fork. If there is no
> way to unite OpenOffice and LibreOffice into a single offering for end
> users, please take this problem elsewhere.
> I understand (and TDF should too) that companies sometimes can't or
> won't work with copyleft software, but I also understand the idealism
> from copyleft enthusiasts. The question the copyleft people should ask
> themselves; Who is the enemy? MS Office is the one that will benefit
> from the divergence. Is the ideological high ground more important, or
> is market share more important? If the former, go with your license
> choice, if latter, you should consider moving to ALv2 and join forces
> right now.
>
> To the Incubator PMC; I hope I am not alone in thinking that bringing
> this to Apache without TDF/LO on-board is really BAD for Apache's
> reputation in the larger software community. I urge everyone to think
> this through carefully, and not blindly think it is Ok just because
> Jim, Greg, Sam and other heavy-weighters here are the main supporters
> of this.
>
>
> Thank you
> Niclas
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Florian Effenberger
> <fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Hi Niclas,
> >
> > Niclas Hedhman wrote on 2011-06-06 18.12:
> >
> >> I was on a long flight and came back to an immense number of mails
> >> here and elsewhere on this topic, so please bear with me if this has
> >> been brought up before, by someone else.
> >
> > hope you had a safte trip, and I can feel with you - I had several hundred
> > mails just over the weekend. :-)
> >
> >> I vaguely recall the fork of OOo into LibreOffice, and if memory
> >> serves me right it was due to escape Oracle's governance/influence, or
> >> something to that extent.
> >
> > I tried to sum-up the situation yesterday in these mails and associated
> > links - hope that helps for some inside view:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06607.html
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06575.html
> >
> > ; http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06579.html
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06585.html
> >
> >> ; Was it already at that time known that Oracle was going with a liberal
> >> license, and the fork was then a choice based in the ideological
> >> differences in licensing?
> >
> > Very briefly, the TDF was, among other things, created because Oracle
didn't
> > say *anything*. The move to another license was a surprise to us as well,
so
> > our decision has not been based on license ideology, but rather as we
>wanted
> > to provide a good home for our community. Oracle wasn't responsive at all
on
> > so many questions.
> >
> >> If it was not, how would the people who forked then have reacted if
> >> Oracle did then (pre-fork) what they are doing now?
> >
> > It is for sure hard to say, but I (personally) am sure things would have
> > happened different. Having OOo with a foundation is part of the project's
> > mission statement since day one, since the announcement in June 2000 (!).
> >
> > It's hard to say if the community had instanly agreed to a move to ASF.
But,
> > again, TDF has not been created out of licensing issues, but rather as
> > wanted to have a safe and stable home for the community. Based on the lack
> > of feedback from Oracle on so many important questions, there was no other
> > choice left.
> >
> > And now, that we created everything, Oracle acts - something we had wished
> > for much earlier, ideally before September 28th, 2010.
> >
> > But shall we now join the ASF proposal, re-creating everything we already
> > did twice (once at OOo, then at TDF) just because Oracle finally made it,
or
> > doesn't it make more sense to work in the environment we created
> > specifically for the needs of our community?
> >
> > I posted it in another message, but it's important, so I repeat: The TDF
was
> > created with support of *ALL* community council members who have been not
> > employed by Oracle, and most co-leads and project leads joined us. I think
> > this speaks for itself.
> >
> >> Finally, do you (TDF) thinks it is better that Oracle gives the
> >> codebase, trademarks and other IP-rights to IBM than to Apache? The
> >> way I read the situation, that is the alternative available most
> >> likely to happen in that case, possibly as a fully internal project.
> >> Giving OOo to TDF is something Oracle simply can't do, there is likely
> >> a promise to IBM...
> >
> > My personal point was not so much about the software grant. If I
understood
> > this right, it exists independent from the incubation process or result. My
> > point was that it is a waste of time and energy and split efforts, when
> > there is a second project set-up.
> >
> > So, easily spoken:
> > If ASF accepts the software grant, that's better than if it doesn't accept
> > it. :)
> >
> > However, does this really need a project where people have to come up with
> > infrastructure, marketing, QA etc., or wouldn't it make sense to join
> > forces?
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/24svnvk
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> For the record; I am opposing this contribution and will vote -1,
> unless there is a clear indication that TDF/LO is behind it 100% and
> the two projects are on a trajectory of a merge.
I urge TDF to participate, but their participation should not be a
prerequisite for us to Incubate a project.
> I hope I am not alone in thinking that bringing this to Apache without
> TDF/LO on-board is really BAD for Apache's reputation in the larger
> software community.
We didn't balk when Geronimo was proposed, despite complaints from JBoss.
We didn't balk when Felix (nee Oscar) was proposed. We didn't balk in other
cases. We have never picked winners, we have incubated projects and let the
community pick the winners. I don't see a reason to change our philosophy
now.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Thank you both for (what I perceive as) balanced responses, without
all the noise out there.
For the record; I am opposing this contribution and will vote -1,
unless there is a clear indication that TDF/LO is behind it 100% and
the two projects are on a trajectory of a merge. I don't want to see
Apache involved in prolonging or extending this fork. If there is no
way to unite OpenOffice and LibreOffice into a single offering for end
users, please take this problem elsewhere.
I understand (and TDF should too) that companies sometimes can't or
won't work with copyleft software, but I also understand the idealism
from copyleft enthusiasts. The question the copyleft people should ask
themselves; Who is the enemy? MS Office is the one that will benefit
from the divergence. Is the ideological high ground more important, or
is market share more important? If the former, go with your license
choice, if latter, you should consider moving to ALv2 and join forces
right now.
To the Incubator PMC; I hope I am not alone in thinking that bringing
this to Apache without TDF/LO on-board is really BAD for Apache's
reputation in the larger software community. I urge everyone to think
this through carefully, and not blindly think it is Ok just because
Jim, Greg, Sam and other heavy-weighters here are the main supporters
of this.
Thank you
Niclas
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Niclas,
>
> Niclas Hedhman wrote on 2011-06-06 18.12:
>
>> I was on a long flight and came back to an immense number of mails
>> here and elsewhere on this topic, so please bear with me if this has
>> been brought up before, by someone else.
>
> hope you had a safte trip, and I can feel with you - I had several hundred
> mails just over the weekend. :-)
>
>> I vaguely recall the fork of OOo into LibreOffice, and if memory
>> serves me right it was due to escape Oracle's governance/influence, or
>> something to that extent.
>
> I tried to sum-up the situation yesterday in these mails and associated
> links - hope that helps for some inside view:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06607.html
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06575.html
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06579.html
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06585.html
>
>> Was it already at that time known that Oracle was going with a liberal
>> license, and the fork was then a choice based in the ideological
>> differences in licensing?
>
> Very briefly, the TDF was, among other things, created because Oracle didn't
> say *anything*. The move to another license was a surprise to us as well, so
> our decision has not been based on license ideology, but rather as we wanted
> to provide a good home for our community. Oracle wasn't responsive at all on
> so many questions.
>
>> If it was not, how would the people who forked then have reacted if
>> Oracle did then (pre-fork) what they are doing now?
>
> It is for sure hard to say, but I (personally) am sure things would have
> happened different. Having OOo with a foundation is part of the project's
> mission statement since day one, since the announcement in June 2000 (!).
>
> It's hard to say if the community had instanly agreed to a move to ASF. But,
> again, TDF has not been created out of licensing issues, but rather as
> wanted to have a safe and stable home for the community. Based on the lack
> of feedback from Oracle on so many important questions, there was no other
> choice left.
>
> And now, that we created everything, Oracle acts - something we had wished
> for much earlier, ideally before September 28th, 2010.
>
> But shall we now join the ASF proposal, re-creating everything we already
> did twice (once at OOo, then at TDF) just because Oracle finally made it, or
> doesn't it make more sense to work in the environment we created
> specifically for the needs of our community?
>
> I posted it in another message, but it's important, so I repeat: The TDF was
> created with support of *ALL* community council members who have been not
> employed by Oracle, and most co-leads and project leads joined us. I think
> this speaks for itself.
>
>> Finally, do you (TDF) thinks it is better that Oracle gives the
>> codebase, trademarks and other IP-rights to IBM than to Apache? The
>> way I read the situation, that is the alternative available most
>> likely to happen in that case, possibly as a fully internal project.
>> Giving OOo to TDF is something Oracle simply can't do, there is likely
>> a promise to IBM...
>
> My personal point was not so much about the software grant. If I understood
> this right, it exists independent from the incubation process or result. My
> point was that it is a waste of time and energy and split efforts, when
> there is a second project set-up.
>
> So, easily spoken:
> If ASF accepts the software grant, that's better than if it doesn't accept
> it. :)
>
> However, does this really need a project where people have to come up with
> infrastructure, marketing, QA etc., or wouldn't it make sense to join
> forces?
>
> 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
>
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/24svnvk
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>.
Hi Niclas,
Niclas Hedhman wrote on 2011-06-06 18.12:
> I was on a long flight and came back to an immense number of mails
> here and elsewhere on this topic, so please bear with me if this has
> been brought up before, by someone else.
hope you had a safte trip, and I can feel with you - I had several
hundred mails just over the weekend. :-)
> I vaguely recall the fork of OOo into LibreOffice, and if memory
> serves me right it was due to escape Oracle's governance/influence, or
> something to that extent.
I tried to sum-up the situation yesterday in these mails and associated
links - hope that helps for some inside view:
http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06607.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06575.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06579.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06585.html
> Was it already at that time known that Oracle was going with a liberal
> license, and the fork was then a choice based in the ideological
> differences in licensing?
Very briefly, the TDF was, among other things, created because Oracle
didn't say *anything*. The move to another license was a surprise to us
as well, so our decision has not been based on license ideology, but
rather as we wanted to provide a good home for our community. Oracle
wasn't responsive at all on so many questions.
> If it was not, how would the people who forked then have reacted if
> Oracle did then (pre-fork) what they are doing now?
It is for sure hard to say, but I (personally) am sure things would have
happened different. Having OOo with a foundation is part of the
project's mission statement since day one, since the announcement in
June 2000 (!).
It's hard to say if the community had instanly agreed to a move to ASF.
But, again, TDF has not been created out of licensing issues, but rather
as wanted to have a safe and stable home for the community. Based on the
lack of feedback from Oracle on so many important questions, there was
no other choice left.
And now, that we created everything, Oracle acts - something we had
wished for much earlier, ideally before September 28th, 2010.
But shall we now join the ASF proposal, re-creating everything we
already did twice (once at OOo, then at TDF) just because Oracle finally
made it, or doesn't it make more sense to work in the environment we
created specifically for the needs of our community?
I posted it in another message, but it's important, so I repeat: The TDF
was created with support of *ALL* community council members who have
been not employed by Oracle, and most co-leads and project leads joined
us. I think this speaks for itself.
> Finally, do you (TDF) thinks it is better that Oracle gives the
> codebase, trademarks and other IP-rights to IBM than to Apache? The
> way I read the situation, that is the alternative available most
> likely to happen in that case, possibly as a fully internal project.
> Giving OOo to TDF is something Oracle simply can't do, there is likely
> a promise to IBM...
My personal point was not so much about the software grant. If I
understood this right, it exists independent from the incubation process
or result. My point was that it is a waste of time and energy and split
efforts, when there is a second project set-up.
So, easily spoken:
If ASF accepts the software grant, that's better than if it doesn't
accept it. :)
However, does this really need a project where people have to come up
with infrastructure, marketing, QA etc., or wouldn't it make sense to
join forces?
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: Question to TDF and its community
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 6 June 2011 17:12, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
Was it already at that time known that Oracle was going with a liberal
> license, and the fork was then a choice based in the ideological
> differences in licensing?
>
> If it was not, how would the people who forked then have reacted if
> Oracle did then (pre-fork) what they are doing now?
>
First question - probably not but if so it was a well kept secret!
Second question already asked and I think the answer depends on individuals.
Some people are committed copylefters, others aren't.
Finally, do you (TDF) thinks it is better that Oracle gives the
> codebase, trademarks and other IP-rights to IBM than to Apache? The
> way I read the situation, that is the alternative available most
> likely to happen in that case, possibly as a fully internal project.
> Giving OOo to TDF is something Oracle simply can't do, there is likely
> a promise to IBM...
>
Certainly I have tried to point out that if Apache did not accept the code
it could end up being a worse rather than better scenario. Recent thinking
seems to be that the code could end up as an unsupported tarball in an
Apache repository open to anyone. Depends on whether the final code is
actually buildable when all the dust settles. I think it probably will be
but there are a lot of unknowns in this so its an educated guess at best.