Exciting all around. Enjoy! Dave
On Jul 13, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Donald Harbison wrote: > (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. >> >>
