Hi, On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:32:56PM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: >>> mmh, i have still one problem. One motivation for me to go into the >>> CC was and still is that i will try to work for a stronger >>> OpenOffice.org community and against derivated work. And in >>> consequence of this i see >> >> a stronger community means actively involving hughe parts of the >> "community". > > I think this is an interesting point. Getting people that work on a > 'derived product' more involved is IMO positive. On the other hand, > there is the question of credibility.
The point is: with better behaving/cooperation from you many patches would not need to be only in "derived product"s but can also be in "vanilla"... >> Or patches lingering around for no reason because no one cares about. > > [IMO OT, but I doubt that there are no aspects as time and complexity > involved. Anyway, I ám interested in this. So expect continued contact > from me about this.] Please do :) >>> a conflict with somebody in the CC who is nowadays the driving force >>> behind a spin-off (wording of go-oo, i call it fork others derivated >>> work). It might be not so obvious for many community members what >>> go-oo really is. And one reason for this is that our project rules >>> are not accepted as they are. Or only partly. >> >> That's not true. At least not for all cases where stuff ends up in go-oo. > > partly = at least not for all cases True. But jsc suggests that's the main cause of patches not being upstream. Whereas many bugfixes are not upstream because the get not integrated - even when the rules are OK to follow. >>> be a product development representative for OOo he has to accept the >>> OOo project rules. >> >> says the one who for a long time didn't accept those either. Should >> I remember you about non-free stuff of yours in the code despite this >> being a open source (and I do take the official open source definition) >> project? > > When you write 'for a long time didn't', the problem seems solved? After years of fighting, yes (And it got fixes by just removing it from the code and it's just only in wiki now, still non-free) (There's still some non-free or legally questionable or even non-legally distributable stuff in the source code, but not in jscs area) > But also this is not relevant in considering the situation we are in > now, IMO. No, it is relevant. How is it not relevant when people accusing other people of not caring about rules does not do it himself? Grüße/Regards, René --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
