On 6/5/11 7:38 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 6/5/11 6:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S.
Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
<niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos
interests is worth splitting the FOSS community.
I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons.
Thanks for expressing my feelings so well, Niall!
I'll lend a voice to the contrary.
I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to
the
incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying to
pull away
developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the
nature of
the beast.
True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than
different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new
project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down?
Of course they software is essentially the same because LO is a fork
of what is being granted. If I wanted to experiment with an HTTP
project that was going to go in a different direction and attract a
different community from Apache HTTP Server, I assume I would be able
to, even if I started as fork from the current HTTP Server code.
I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and
then try to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers
have a vision for where they want to go, even though they may be
starting from the same place.
Seems this is what the incubator is for, finding out if their vision
hold water.
For me, getting the OOo code fully available under AL is reason
enough to +1
it as far as I'm concerned...if I were on the IPMC... :-)
License is important, but thats not all the ASF is about. Community is
important too. I respect you're right to vote however you wish but if
all its down to is license then I'm not sure.
One other point to make, I said for me it is basically sufficient to +1
this proposal just to get all of the OOo code under AL. One reason why I
see this as adding significant value is because it opens up a
possibility (I won't say "freedom", since this is far too noble of a
term for the crap we are talking about) to modify and use the code in
proprietary products that wouldn't otherwise exist if only LO existed.
Again, this last issue is just my opinion, not out of any religion, but
for the possibilities that may arise because of it...who knows, maybe
one day I might come up with an idea that could use some of the code...
;-) It's always nice to have options.
-> richard
Niall
-> richard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org