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 <nic...@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 > <flo...@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 <flo...@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-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@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-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
