(With my IBM hat).... The intent here is to shift the primary development focus to Apache OpenOffice over time. Just as LibreOffice has business commitments to SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, and the other Linux distributions, so does IBM with Symphony and its user community. It would appear that both LibreOffice and Symphony share this challenge, as both packages have much in common with the future success of Apache OpenOffice.
We are all undergoing a fairly radical re-planning excercise. The IBM intent is to 'get off the Symphony fork' within the frame of what's possible, by focusing our energies and resources on Apache OpenOffice working collaboratively and openly in the community. We invite LibreOffice to undergo a similar transformation. Transparency is key here, as we all agree. /don On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > > On 13 Jul 2011, at 23:00, Rob Weir wrote: > > > However, we at IBM have not been exemplary community members when it > > came to OpenOffice.org. This wasn't necessarily by design, but for > > various reasons, that was the effect. Yes, we participated in various > > community councils, and sponsored conferences and worked together on > > standards. But when it came down to the code, we maintained Symphony > > essentially as a fork, and although we occasionally contributed code > > back, we did not do this well, or often. > > Thanks for saying this, Rob. I for one appreciate the openness of this > statement. > > > First, we're going to contribute the standalone version of Lotus > > Symphony to the Apache OpenOffice.org project, under the Apache 2.0 > > license. > > While I'd not expect you to disclose secrets, can you say something about > IBM's future intent with this code? Do you intend to develop Symphony as an > open source project in the future, or is this a one-time code drop? It will > make a difference to our collective planning. > > Thanks, > > S. > >
