Hi Franklin,. Why is this better than working with the version Collabora (who actually contribute to TDF's work) maintain? Why should TDF hire developers to maintain code for the Taiwanese government?
Sincerely. Simon On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 5:47 AM Franklin Weng <frank...@goodhorse.idv.tw> wrote: > Hi, > > > Here I have a proposal: to have LOOL respository sync to another > LOOL-derived suite: > > https://github.com/OSSII/oxool-community > > OxOOL is developed by OSSII in Taiwan, derived from LOOL. It has > commercial version, which is several versions advanced to community > version, while the community version is also open sourced. Currently > National Development Council Taiwan, the main dominant unit of ODF policy > in Taiwanese government, uses (forks) this community version into > "NDCODFweb": > > https://github.com/NDCODF/ndcodfweb > > which is also mainly supported by OSSII. > > Besides NDCODFWeb and some other Taiwanese government units, OxOOL is also > used in different companies and products. For example, it is integrated > into ASUS cloud Omnistor Office ( > https://www.asuscloud.com/omnistor-office/), OpenFind SecuShare Pro ( > https://www.openfind.com.tw/taiwan/secusharepro.html). It is migrated > into Pou Chen Group (https://www.pouchen.com) and some other big > anonymous companies. Also, it is deployed in UNAU ( > https://www.unau.edu.ar/la-universidad/ ). > > OxOOL v4 will be released in a month and can be a good and useful base to > LOOL, also good to the LibreOffice community. > > I'm not a representative of OSSII, but the GM of OSSII told me that they > are happy to share the community version. > > In this proposal there are two ways to relive LOOL: > > 1. To sync current LOOL with patches from OxOOL community v4, which may > technically take more time and efforts. > > 2. Start a new repository from OxOOL community v4, which I'll say that it > is actually a "fast forward" from current status since OxOOL is also > derived from LOOL, though a bit far before. It will be technically easier > than 1., just that maybe some community people may feel uneasy or unhappy > with this way. > > Both ways are okay for me, as long as LOOL can be relived. However no > matter which way, IMO TDF needs to employ in-house developers (independent > from *any* ecosystem member) for rerunning LOOL. The second option, which > is my prefer option, is a lot easier technically and in-house developers > would just need to (cowork with community members and OSSII to) maintain > LOOL repository. > > Features in OxOOL commercial version are mostly (customized) requests from > customers and hence may not necessarily need to be backported (to community > version), but the GM of OSSII also promised that OxOOL Commercial version > functions (which they think good / necessary to be back ported) and > bugfixes will be back ported to LOOL (and OxOOL community version too). > > Of course, after reliving LOOL all developers are welcomed to contribute > to LOOL. > > Details can be discussed with OSSII. > > Regards, > Franklin > -- *Simon Phipps* *TDF Trustee*
