And furthermore .. I don't think it's a good idea to have two lines of documentation, that could not be mixed because of licensing issues. This *must* lead to discussion that we are not "one" community :-(
That already exists for the application itself: OOo for Mac and NeoOffice (_only_ for Mac)
NeoOffice removes all the X11 dependancies and publishes all the modifications under GPL, which means the OOo Mac porting team can't use them.
The result is we have a Mac OOo community split between NO (very user friendly and using a more recent code base) and the official OOo for Mac (not user friendly with an old code base).
There is a similar taboo about NO stealing stuff from OOo, NO related mails not being allowed on OOo lists, on NO being a "fork" (with all the negative implications) etc etc.
Being a Mac and OOo/NO user, I find the OOo community's stance on the issue (and on the OOoAuthor one as well) extremely counterproductive. To me it looks like the OOo community is stuck between the "ideal" they have for OOo and the hard reality of the LGPL. To the point of forgetting that OOo is foremost a volunteer effort and _not_ a licensing scheme.
The OOo community wants to be able to use other contributions but is frustrated at the fact that other contributions' licensing scheme do not allow for that to be accomplished in a smooth way (and sometimes simply forbid it).
It is certainly the case the case for OOoAuthor's stuff as it is for NeoOffice (as volunteer contributions) but it is also the case for proprietary contributions (well, SO for one). But I don't seem to notice a similar level of annoyance at SUN for the fact that SO's proprietary parts can't be included in OOo...
When one can read that NeoOffice is _stealing_ from OOo on OOo's lists, one surprisingly cannot read that SUN is doing the same...
I think the OOo involved people should get their mind sorted about the fact that the biggest OOo code/documentation user is mostly _not_ contributing back the parts that make SO what it is. And, if my understanding is correct, makes sometimes decisions that actually affect the way OOo is developed.
To me it seems if time has to be spent on licensing issues and inclusion of other licensing schemes contributions to OOo, it has to be by arguing with SUN, and _certainly not_ with other volunteer groups.
I for one am an indirect user/promoter of OOo. I could not care less whether OOo is LGPLed and NO is not. For me OOo is _barely_ a file format implementation. I use the file format with the tools I am contributing to. OOo is only one way to put complex text into a documented/non-proprietary accessible file format. I only see it as a filter to and fro MS's proprietary and non documented file formats.
OOo is good at that, NO is even better on Mac, OOo "official" doc is as good as OOoAuthor's and compares to proprietary items I've seen.
Volunteer work is a good way to federate workflows, when the aim is clear. But that does not and should never imply that the federated workflows are compatible, they are complementary at most.
JC Helary --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
