Re: OpenOffice.org next steps
Presumably though the private list is an exception-handling venue and we should just get started on ooo-...@incubator.apache.org for now? Or am I missing key insights here? S.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote: Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 11 Jun 2011, at 11:23, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote: The part about the ASF undertaking only a reference implementation for the ODF format was not discussed. Yes it was. In fact it was the suggestion that OO.o should be refactored so that components could be reused elsewhere that encouraged me to sign up as a mentor. Both TDF and proposers saw this as a potential area for collaboration. There is certainly no consensus on whether this is viable and the original proposers do not want to limit the scope of the project to just this aspect. However, there is a desire from some initial committees and some TDF representatives to explore this. As a mentor I aim to see if this refactoring, with the collaboration opportunities it presents, can be realised. Likewise, it was this prospect (as opposed to pointless competition with LibreOffice) that made me vote +1 as well. S.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
For us outsiders, can you explain who is allowed to vote and in what way, please? S.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
Awesome, thanks. On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alexei Fedotov alexei.fedo...@gmail.comwrote: Anyone is allowed to vote. If you vote against, please, explain why. Most of votes do not count anyway, negative votes are usually addressed. -- With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями, Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов, http://dataved.ru/ +7 916 562 8095 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: For us outsiders, can you explain who is allowed to vote and in what way, please? S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
+1 (non-binding) S.
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:21 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: This is great information. But can I make a suggestion? I don't think this is a discussion that we can really make any progress with now, in reviewing an incubation proposal. I'm not even sure this is something that will be within the ambit of the podling or the IPMC to decide. I agree with you Rob. In a spirit of positivity, I think there are two useful lessons to draw here that may be good background for the IPMC and the podling. * First, the OpenOffice.org /community/ and the OpenOffice.org /assets/ are not the same thing, and any discussion that starts from an assumption they are or can be forced to become so will prove problematic. That's not to say future unity is impossible, of course. But OOo-the-community is diverse, is unlikely to all reside at Apache and has a complicated history as well as a rich future. * Second, there's a lot we all need to know as we devise a workable future together. We'll keep discovering things that are rooted deep in the community's history, and it's better to assume they are a wise and honest conclusion to an earlier conversation until we discover otherwise. With that noted I personally would be delighted to draw a line under the discussion and see the IPMC vote. S.
Re: Remediation ...
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com wrote: IMHO this is vastly preferable to some smoke and lawyer (IANAL) filled room that issues edicts to remove features and veto patches without a clear public rational on a public list (cf. the above). All work at the ASF that involve changes to the code base will be done in smoke-free and publicly archived mailing lists. If you have questions relating to prior work done by groups other than the ASF, I encourage you to contact those groups directly. Despite the tone, I do think Michael makes a serious point. Rob did indicate that IBM has IP concerns and it would be good to have more details before Apache takes on any responsibilities for the code. S.
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2011 22:50, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Dave Fisher wrote: Your donation will go directly towards helping this project. Some of the ways in which your funds might be used include: • Hiring independent developers to work with OpenOffice.org. • Paying for participation at trade shows and conferences. • Paying for organization and staff at annual OpenOffice.org Conference, OOoCon. • Marketing banners, collateral, CDs and brochures. Clearly there ought to be changes to the page and process when/if the podling happens. This is probably at the ASF Board level... certainly the hiring developers part doesn't fit... Well ... that's an interesting question. While hiring could happen outside of the ASF, AFAIK there is nothing to stop us from accepting funds and having a group (analogous to our Travel Assistance process) that offered payment, a la Google Code or other. I do agree that I'd like to see the Board and Membership weigh in on that discussion if/when it ever becomes one. Presumably it would also be possible to have a group outside ASF called eg Friends of Open Office ( FOO) that raised money and put it to code development or marketing or whatever. Not saying that is the best way just its a possibility. Doesn't one of those already exist? S.
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
http://www.teamopenoffice.de/ I believe it is at the disposal of the Community Council, so probably Louis could give a more complete answer. S. On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: to a foundation independent of Oracle: Team OpenOffice.org e.V. searching for a more complete answer Oracle Email Signature Logo Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect Oracle Corporate Architecture Group Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847 On 6/8/2011 4:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: I started looking around at the OOo website. I'm not sure if now is the time to bring this up, but at http://contributing.openoffice.org/donate.html there is a solicitation for funds via three processes. Here's what the page says: Your donation will go directly towards helping this project. Some of the ways in which your funds might be used include: • Hiring independent developers to work with OpenOffice.org. • Paying for participation at trade shows and conferences. • Paying for organization and staff at annual OpenOffice.org Conference, OOoCon. • Marketing banners, collateral, CDs and brochures. Please discuss the tax benefits of donating with your accountant. You can make a donation to our primary treasury, Team OpenOffice.org, e.V. via PayPal or credit card or use bank transfer. Or, if you prefer to donate US dolars (USD) via credit card, cheque or money order, you can use use Software In the Public Interest, Inc. (SPI), and simply identify the recipient project, OpenOffice.org, where indicataed in the instructions SPI provides: SPI Donations for OpenOffice.org . (SPI does not accept PayPal or wire transfers.) Clearly there ought to be changes to the page and process when/if the podling happens. This is probably at the ASF Board level... certainly the hiring developers part doesn't fit... btw, where do those funds go now?? I'm guessing some sort of escrow account held by Oracle? - 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 -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Andy Brown a...@the-martin-byrd.netwrote: Andrew Rist wrote: to a foundation independent of Oracle: Team OpenOffice.org e.V. searching for a more complete answer It would be interesting to find out if all funds received for OOo were accounted for since the fork. The e.V changed names and collects donations for LibreOffice, http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/ . As I recall the fund was always run strictly independently anyway - the founders included Sun employees and the activity was scrutinised and firewalled away from Sun. It was used mostly to make travel grants to allow community members to attend events. S.
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:48 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/08/2011 06:44:35 PM: I was actually thinking of Freies Office Deutschland e.V. primarily, http://www.frodev.org/ Interesting. That happens to also be where TDF donations go: http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/ Indeed - if you look at FrODeV's articles it's established to support the OpenOffice.org community in general, which includes LibreOffice. S.
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Andy Brown a...@the-martin-byrd.netwrote: Andrew Rist wrote: to a foundation independent of Oracle: Team OpenOffice.org e.V. searching for a more complete answer It would be interesting to find out if all funds received for OOo were accounted for since the fork. The e.V changed names and collects donations for LibreOffice, http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/ . Are you sure about that? Do you have references? I looked at the 2009 accounts for FrODeV[1] and they seem to indicate that the entity was actually something called Verein OpenOffice.org Deutschland eV, prior to being renamed, and they say they maintain a separate account for TDF[2] anyway. S. [1] http://www.frodev.org/downloads-1 [2] http://www.frodev.org/spenden
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:43 AM, donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote: Don Harbison Program Director, IBM ODF Initiative Tel. +1-978-399-7018 Mobile: +1-978-761-0116 Email: donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/08/2011 07:51:20 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: 06/08/2011 07:52 PM Subject: Re: OOo Monetary Donations On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:48 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/08/2011 06:44:35 PM: I was actually thinking of Freies Office Deutschland e.V. primarily, http://www.frodev.org/ Interesting. That happens to also be where TDF donations go: http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/ Indeed - if you look at FrODeV's articles it's established to support the OpenOffice.org community in general, which includes LibreOffice. Reference please? Articles are here: http://www.frodev.org/satzung The press statement on their home page http://www.frodev.org/ explains more succinctly (Google Translated): The nonprofit organization OpenOffice.org Germany (OOoDeV) today announced it will continue to support all the free office suites. This includes the Document maintained by the Foundation libre office, all other Office programs that are available as free software and build on open document formats. For this reason, a broad membership base of almost 75% approved the name change to Free Office of Germany (FrODeV). The donations page http://www.frodev.org/spenden also clarifies: For donations in support of The Document Foundation, we have set up a separate account. Information, see http://challenge.documentfoundation.org/spenden/http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=enie=UTF8langpair=auto%7Cenrurl=translate.google.comtbb=1twu=1u=http://challenge.documentfoundation.org/spenden/usg=ALkJrhiB6QV2iuNG_NwQIUugQr3ln4tU1A. As far as I can determine, this is all unrelated to Team OpenOffice.org eV, but all the people I could ask about it are obviously asleep (like I should be). S.
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Andy Brown wrote: Andrew Rist wrote: to a foundation independent of Oracle: Team OpenOffice.org e.V. searching for a more complete answer It would be interesting to find out if all funds received for OOo were accounted for since the fork. The e.V changed names and collects donations for LibreOffice, http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/ . Please tell me that does not mean that when people go to OOo and make a donation that it winds up in TDF's coffers. Please. OK :-) Doesn't look like they do, no. They benefit the OpenOffice.org community. Mind you, that does include LibreOffice. S.
Re: OOo Monetary Donations
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:07 AM, donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote: In the same regard, the Team OpenOffice.org e.V. to which IBM and other corporate sponsors provided annual financial support may now wish to consider consolidation with http://www.frodev.org/. If that seems inappropriate, perhaps both need to be retired, as we pivot into the future with the ASF OpenOffice project while the TDF / LibreOffice.org project runs in parallel, and something new (I have no clue!) needs to be createdall for one, one for all. It might make sense, yes, but in the end both eVs are independent legal entities and what they do is up to their board members, so we're all going to have to speak nicely to them whatever change we collectively desire! S.
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote: Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org wrote: On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote: ... LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of your software. Great! Don't worry about that. We celebrate that. The folks here at apache tend to like to code - and if others use it - build amazing things with it - so much the better. +1000 Can I ask if the above statement regarding reuse is a consensus position or an individual opinion. It's really just a matter of fact, Ross. The code is spaghetti of the first order, and unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the context of actual shared repositories. S.
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mathias Bauer mathias_ba...@gmx.netwrote: On 07.06.2011 12:37, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Mathias Bauer wrote: I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code from the svn repository. It was promised that the needed files will be provided once they are known. I'm confident that this will work out. Hi Mathias, hm, that bears the risk of missing stuff, and having to redo the work - potentially rather late in the game (on top of having to replace all non-Oracle-owned code). Whereas getting a blanket statement from Oracle (here we grant you the hg repo bundle) admittedly puts some risk into Oracle's basket. That's not possible as Oracle does not own the copyright for every file in the repository (example: dictionaries). You are both right. It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? My approach would be to start with the whole list of files in the repo, remove all things I know that are problematic, create a diff to the list provided so far and have a second look on this difference list for possible naughty bits. Everythings else (history etc.) can be sorted out later. Regards, Mathias
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
I just heard back from the Open World Forum Programme Committee (Paris, October) and they would be pleased to provide us with space for a meeting. S.
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the work-in-progress CWS[1] please? Thanks S. [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. references: [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bb9a.7040...@oracle.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: A little OOo history
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Of course, this is not necessarily a problem for Apache. Think of it this way. It would be perfectly possible, and actually quite easy for someone to host the files with a scalable cloud storage provider, e.g., Amazon, and charge $0.99 for the download, the cost of an iPhone app. That is over $30 million/year. Heck, I might just do that myself and retire! For clarity, are you proposing that Apache should charge $1/download for OpenOffice.org, or are you proposing Apache should delegate downloads to an external organisation that does this? S.
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Good to know, many thanks. S. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo repositories. A. On 6/7/2011 10:14 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the work-in-progress CWS[1] please? Thanks S. [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Ristandrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. references: [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bb9a.7040...@oracle.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - 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 -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the context of actual shared repositories. That sounds like a fine scenario. The ASF is good at providing Open Source to be reused downstream. And hopefully (from my perspective, at least) there will be refactoring, or even rearchitecting/rewriting, to enable OOo to better participate in the mobile/cloud arena, with that forming the basis for downstream builds. I agree on both counts. My sense continues to be that the best outcome would be close to my original proposal[1], although that got substantial push-back from some quarters. I saw pushback from multiple sides. From what I can see, that push-back still exists. Reminding people of this is not going to help. Reminding people of what, Sam? As far as I can see the resulting consensus text is still there in the proposal. Are you proposing that it should be removed? S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
Are you logged in? Accounts are free (hey, they even let me have one)!
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 7, 2011 10:09 PM, Jomar Silva (Cuca) homem...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon,
I've tried to edit the wiki but I don't have permisson... shame on me :)
Best,
Jomar
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM: Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other owners to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there holds the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some definite legwork, but it seems doable. I was assuming that the CWS's contributed to OOo were already covered under the JCA, Sun Contributor Agreement or Oracle Contributor Agreement, depending on the date: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Joint_Copyright_Assignment Or is that note the case? Anyone know? Anything contributed would definitely fall into that category, yes. The only possible exception would be work originating from Sun, which could potentially be using code from other sources that Sun had sourced but not yet got round to open sourcing. Sun had a rigorous process for ensuring all inbound code was tracked and cleared before use. Code in this condition would be capable of being open source licensed, so Oracle would be free to simply include it in the grant too. Net: I don't personally see any obstacles, apart from Oracle legal satisfying themselves that all the processes had, in fact, been followed. S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Jomar Silva (Cuca) homem...@gmail.comwrote: Yep... but even logged in I couldn't edit it... I'm from the third world, you know :) Fascinating. Can you send me your login details privately and I'll see if any of the folk I have on IM can help :-) S.
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I would recommend altering the proposal. We have the set of files specified in the software grant. During incubation, we will seek a grant to the following groups of code: bullet list Done. Beat me to it :-) We still need to get that list fleshed out though, so it probably out to have its own wiki page somewhere, no? Simon, just a procedural pointL it's not quite kosher for just anyone to change an ASF podling proposal. In general, the sponsor, champion and initial submitters have that authority (after all, it is *their* proposal). People are encouraged to add themselves as contributors, of course, but substantial changes to the actual proposal are not, in general, accepted. Sorry Jim - I actually asked Sam and others about this earlier[1] and he told me to go right ahead[2][3]. Clearly I was right to be reticent[1] and I'll be sure not to consider it again. S. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktikk61x_bhdb+csp3um9x3xbmgm...@mail.gmail.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTimMWBNVpFVwFk8cHcQ_cZ=zqL=b...@mail.gmail.com%3E [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktinyi_mcbmxyj2ao-un6uvtzdnc...@mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Like most aspects of Apache, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to seek permission, epecially when we don't all agree on the necessity of it ;-). Given I had actually asked for and received permission from the proposal mentor I thought most likely to object, I'm actually pretty pissed and alienated to be told off for contributing. Going out for sushi to cool off. S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other things. Carrots and sticks. Is Apache historically flexible in this area? I had the impression the trademark policy was usually strictly applied and narrowly interpreted. S.
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Phillip Rhodes motley.crue@gmail.comwrote: Let's say we persuaded the good guys at Apache that this is a ploy to manipulate them and they reject the code. Where then will it go? If conspiracy is right it definitely won't be to TDF and it could be to somewhere a lot more damaging to TDF than the ASF. 100% agreed. Once this project is approved, it will be much easier to work out ideal compromises together too. S.
OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
My apologies if this proposal is out of place on either list, but I think it's worth thinking about early. Obviously I speak for neither Apache nor TDF but I have a deep concern for OpenOffice.org and am very keen to see the community healed. Given that: * both LibreOffice (October, Paris) and Apache (November, Vancouver) have conferences in the second half of the year, * between them cover both Europe and North America, * plenty of people will be travelling anyway to attend them, * it's much easier to co-operate with people you've met I would like to suggest to both TDF and Apache that they host an OpenOffice.org Unity Summit (or some less cheesy name if you prefer!) at both conferences, inviting everyone associated in any way with the overall OpenOffice.org community (open source projects like LibreOffice or the proposed Apache project, their direct downstreams like NeoOffice, their commercial derivatives like Symphony) to attend, preferably without charge. The event would need a neutral Chair/Organiser and a suitably egalitarian agenda, naturally. Is this worth exploring? S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On 6 Jun 2011, at 19:03, Nóirín Plunkett wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: My apologies if this proposal is out of place on either list, but I think it's worth thinking about early. Obviously I speak for neither Apache nor TDF but I have a deep concern for OpenOffice.org and am very keen to see the community healed. Given that: * both LibreOffice (October, Paris) and Apache (November, Vancouver) have conferences in the second half of the year, * between them cover both Europe and North America, * plenty of people will be travelling anyway to attend them, * it's much easier to co-operate with people you've met I would like to suggest to both TDF and Apache that they host an OpenOffice.org Unity Summit (or some less cheesy name if you prefer!) at both conferences, inviting everyone associated in any way with the overall OpenOffice.org community (open source projects like LibreOffice or the proposed Apache project, their direct downstreams like NeoOffice, their commercial derivatives like Symphony) to attend, preferably without charge. We haven't yet started scheduling the Meetups for ApacheCon yet (it is still five months out :-)), but with such a vibrant community, it seems certain to me that *someone* will propose an OOo one. It is usual at Apache that those who volunteer to do the work get to steer a course for that work, but I think we can ensure that it's open and inclusive, and we always welcome new volunteers! Our Meetups are typically evening events adjacent to the main conference, and are free of charge to attendees (whether or not they're registered for the conference.) We'd be more than happy to welcome the whole FLOSS-Office ecosystem, I'm sure. However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months, perhaps we could set something up sooner than that? OSCON, anyone? I'll be at OSCON and would be pleased to help with this, sure. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Danese Cooper dan...@gmail.com wrote: However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months, perhaps we could set something up sooner than that? OSCON, anyone? I've just asked for a room at OSCON, although I'd like to mention that many of TDF's members are in Europe...we need to find venues there. Not many big events in Europe before the end of August :-) I can probably get us space at OWF in Paris, 22-24 September (I am on the programme committee) if that's interesting, but it's only a month before LibreOfficeCon. S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Danese Cooper dan...@gmail.com wrote: However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months, perhaps we could set something up sooner than that? OSCON, anyone? I've just asked for a room at OSCON, although I'd like to mention that many of TDF's members are in Europe...we need to find venues there. Not many big events in Europe before the end of August :-) I can probably get us space at OWF in Paris, 22-24 September (I am on the programme committee) if that's interesting, but it's only a month before LibreOfficeCon. S. I've requested a space at Open World Forum too. S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:04, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It's just a meeting between colleagues. If all it does is break a little of the entrenched ice I'd call it a success. Sure beats email for dealing with emotions/trust. Right. And we can also be optimistic that the Incubator will vote the podling in. And optimistic that we'd have something to talk about. Really... nobody is talking about any kind of meetup before mid-July, so there is time. Worst case? Podling doesn't get started, and we just don't meet up. Not a big deal. But to get the ball rolling... yah. Let's try now. In the event it doesn't get started (and I sincerely hope it does) it will be even more important for the OpenOffice.org community-at-large to come together to work out what happens next. So I figure we need these meetings regardless, unless we all want the future devised in closed rooms by corporate politicians... S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:49 PM, donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/06/2011 03:18:11 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: 06/06/2011 03:19 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:04, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: It's just a meeting between colleagues. If all it does is break a little of the entrenched ice I'd call it a success. Sure beats email for dealing with emotions/trust. Right. And we can also be optimistic that the Incubator will vote the podling in. And optimistic that we'd have something to talk about. Really... nobody is talking about any kind of meetup before mid-July, so there is time. Worst case? Podling doesn't get started, and we just don't meet up. Not a big deal. But to get the ball rolling... yah. Let's try now. In the event it doesn't get started (and I sincerely hope it does) it will be even more important for the OpenOffice.org community-at-large to come together to work out what happens next. So I figure we need these meetings regardless, unless we all want the future devised in closed rooms by corporate politicians... I thought the purpose of this thread was to move forward. S. /don I don't get your point, Don? Are you saying you disagree that community summits are worth holding regardless of the outcome of the Apache activity? S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
I've created a wiki page for us to co-ordinate who can attend what where. Do please edit at will, there are no rules and I am sure I made lots of mistakes :-) http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/OOoCommunitySummit S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote: Hi Jim, all, 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com: On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote: Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's recommendation, than taxes. I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in a sense. Taxes were not an issue... I do not see where the demands were unpalatable: http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/ TDF just refused to pay for anything which is under contract of Oracle. Thx for the link. It is good to see TDF opening up regarding what their original request was to Oracle. Subsequent discussions, of course, are not known but so what. They are moot. For whatever reason, Oracle did not think that TDF was the right place. That ship has sailed. Time to figure out what to do now. I asked, and apparently there were no subsequent discussions. But I agree, this ship has sailed and I'd be pleased to see this all move into a podlet...
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal - Budget Concerns
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.orgwrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Nóirín Plunkett noi...@apache.org wrote: Note that an expo-hall pass is free until (and including) today; it's $25 thereafter. This also opens up the evening events Mon-Fri, which, if you're going to find yourself in Portland that week, might be fun to attend :-) Noirin Drew Jensen probably have better knowlledge of the more community focus events across the US. Specially the Linuxfests. They usually have a more open source crowd (with open source budgets). I heard the Ohio Linuxfest is one of the most recognized ones. Do please add ebents (and yourselves) to: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/OOoCommunitySummit S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
Add it to the wiki, Jomar! I'll be there for sure. S. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Jomar Silva (Cuca) homem...@gmail.comwrote: I understand that it could be difficult for you to come to Brazil on the next month, but we'll have here the biggest Free Software event in South America, the FISL (http://softwarelivre.org/fisl12?lang=en). I know that some of you were at FISL in past years, and maybe someone will attend the event in this year. I'll be there and if we have some of you here in Brazil too, we may find some room on the event to discuss the themes proposed here with the Brazilian community (and anyone else that would like to join us). You may already know that Brazil has a huge and active LO/OO community and we estimate that we have millions of LO/OO users in Brazil (just to give you a clear idea about that, the users commited to use ODF just inside government is estimated in 3 million). Best, Jomar Silva - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Rather wondering why this is the one thread that won't die... On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Allen Pulsifer wrote: I think your labels Conclusion and Supporting statements are incorrect To the contrary, Cor indicates that I nailed the matter quite squarely. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: [italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]
I'm aware that Sun successfully challenged a problematic third party
registration in Brazil just as the acquisition was going through. It may be
worth early investigation in case the registration on Sun's behalf was not
then completed; OOo had serious issues in Brazil over many years because of
it.
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 5, 2011 12:53 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
Sophie Gautier wrote:
Hi all,
On 05/06/2011 10:06, Julien Vermillard wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcurua...@shanecurcuru.org
wrote:
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
...snip...
* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
...snip...
The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark
along with
a specific list of source code files.
I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the
ASF
yet (i.e. legal documents officially transferring ownership within
the USPTO
here in the US).
As best I understand, the ASF does not currently own the trademark,
but the
intent of both Oracle and the ASF is that the trademark will be
transferred
to the ASF once the appropriate legal paperwork is completed. I
presume,
and will follow up, to ensure this includes the graphical logo with the
seagulls.
Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of
OpenOffice.org or
the logo or other related marks in other countries besides the US?
- Shane Curcuru
VP, Brand Management, The Apache Software Foundation
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
For those interested:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serialentry=78581289
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serialentry=77021413
Hi
I found it in the E.U. database, look like it's registered (with the
logo).
You can check there searching openoffice (can't paste result url..) :
http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/basicSearch.html
http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic
I've got the BOPI for France if you're interested in.
Kind regards
Sophie
Yes, please. If anyone has direct links to specific registration
numbers and where they're held of either OpenOffice.org (which we're
talking about here) or Open Office (which some other organizations
have in at least Europe) they'd be very helpful. I posted a link to the
Benelux registration of Open Office by that company in the Netherlands.
The best place to send those is tradema...@apache.org, a privately
archived list where we organize trademark policy for the ASF.
Thanks!
- Shane
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: No, we don't need the comprehensive list to start. OK, that's good. It will be worth gathering a group of experts to build a comprehensive view. I suggest that include LibreOffice developers too. After all that, then we can go back to Oracle and make specific requests for the branches where Oracle owns the copyright. I believe Andrew already stated that moving over the core is primary, and then we can mop up later with extensions and whatnot. While the extensions in particular are a concern (plenty of us will be horrified to lose the Presenter Console from Impress for example), it's also important to get the work that was in progress internal to Sun on core code features when the project was frozen - i.e., code that had not yet made it to open source but was expected to do so. Cheers, S.
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com wrote: Concerning the extensions, by reading the file Sam Ruby uploaded, the following extensions are in the grant: snip Thanks, I'd missed those. Reassuring :-) I don't see the MySQL Connector module there http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/file/DEV300_m106/mysqlc Another important thing missing are the default images: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/file/DEV300_m106/default_images Both worth pursuing. Anyone know if there's a place to start a list? I'm not from round these parts... And the whole localization: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/master_l10n/DEV300/ http://hg.services.openoffice.org/master_l10n/OOO340/ That's very concerning, as perhaps the chief glory of OO.o is the astounding localisation work. And there is no information about the future of all the open CWS. This also needs flagging as these are where all the upcoming innovations would be located. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.comwrote: It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in existence? I am pretty sure you will not get a satisfactory answer to that question here as the reply is complex and unappealing. I strongly suggest dropping the line of attack, although of course I am a guest to so have none of the authority Sam Ruby would wield, despite the omniscience Rob claims I have :-) Cheers S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.orgwrote: 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. I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been waiting to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has been strong on long-term abstract vision (clearly more omniscient than me), but any time specifics of what ( how) is going to happen in the immediate future in terms of maintaining the important consumer end-user presence OpenOffice.org delivers, things get pretty fuzzy and hand-wavey. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.orgwrote: On 6/5/11 7:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote: 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. I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been waiting to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has been strong on long-term abstract vision (clearly more omniscient than me), but any time specifics of what ( how) is going to happen in the immediate future in terms of maintaining the important consumer end-user presence OpenOffice.org delivers, things get pretty fuzzy and hand-wavey. Even if the answer is, We don't have a short-term plan for all of the consumers. I don't really see that as some smoking gun that says they can't enter incubation. Granted, it would be nice if the brand weren't hurt in the process, but at the same time I don't see how we can hold an incubator project accountable for all of that...even if it is their goal to do so. I actually agree, but as I say so far I have not seen even that as a statement. S.
Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote: There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable unless the pending application is turned down. Actually that trademark application is of deep concern to the community and it would be highly desirable for Apache to either ask Oracle to challenge it or to rapidly transfer the trademarks from Oracle and mount a challenge. S.
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I would recommend altering the proposal. We have the set of files specified in the software grant. During incubation, we will seek a grant to the following groups of code: bullet list Done. Beat me to it :-) We still need to get that list fleshed out though, so it probably out to have its own wiki page somewhere, no? S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana sanj...@opensource.lkwrote: The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know a few OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as that'll confuse end-users. I still think that's open for discussion. To my eyes it still makes a lot of sense to have Apache host the parts IBM (and maybe others, although their existence is exaggerated) need for their proprietary products, and then have TDF maintain a consumer end-user deliverable downstream as well. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:37 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM: From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been waiting to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has been strong on long-term abstract vision (clearly more omniscient than me), but any time specifics of what ( how) is going to happen in the immediate future in terms of maintaining the important consumer end-user presence OpenOffice.org delivers, things get pretty fuzzy and hand-wavey. Perhaps you missed it in the thread on end-users. Here is a link: http://markmail.org/message/ge3jom3px5dviils I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue creating, building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all the locales it is today, along with an estimate for the IPMT of how big the task is, whether it's adequately staffed, what infrastructure it needs and so on. Your focus on the ODF market is laudable and you know I've been supporting similar aims for even longer than you have. But my big concern remains making sure that throughout 2011 there's a fresh, live consumer binary being produced to keep the enormous existing user-base satisfied. S.
Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a division of markets conversation?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:08 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM: The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know a few OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as that'll confuse end-users. I still think that's open for discussion. To my eyes it still makes a lot of sense to have Apache host the parts IBM (and maybe others, although their existence is exaggerated) need for their proprietary products, and then have TDF maintain a consumer end-user deliverable downstream as well. I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream deliverable. It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It would be great if a private company does this. It would be good of a government wants to do this. It would be great if multiple parties wanted to do this together. It would be great it multiple parties wanted to do this separately. But I am very very very concerned that this conversation is starting to cross over into a division of market conversation, which has stiff penalties under US and international competition law. Open source work, like standards, is work done voluntarily among competitors in the market. There are some things we must not talk about, especially things where competitors may be seen as arranging to reduce competition. We need to steer the conversation far from this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories We are discussing how the OpenOffice.org community (which as has been explained has two different open source projects in addition to a variety of downstream commercial consumers of the open source code) could structure its operations. S.
Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a division of markets conversation?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 09:13:24 PM: I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream deliverable. It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It would be great if a private company does this. It would be good of a government wants to do this. It would be great if multiple parties wanted to do this together. It would be great it multiple parties wanted to do this separately. But I am very very very concerned that this conversation is starting to cross over into a division of market conversation, which has stiff penalties under US and international competition law. Open source work, like standards, is work done voluntarily among competitors in the market. There are some things we must not talk about, especially things where competitors may be seen as arranging to reduce competition. We need to steer the conversation far from this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories We are discussing how the OpenOffice.org community (which as has been explained has two different open source projects in addition to a variety of downstream commercial consumers of the open source code) could structure its operations. Simon, in several posts I heard you suggest what sounded to me like a compromise that would reserve end user supported versions for TDF/LO, while Apache would exclude itself from that market and pursue other options. You put that into the wiki at one point, using the workd complementary to describe the division. You've suggested that Apache not try to get involved in end-user software, especially where it would compete with TDF/LO. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. But if you are suggesting anything like that, I think that is crossing the line. Exclude itself from the market is extraordinary language to use Rob. You seem to view LibreOffice as a competitor, as if this were competition between IBM and Novell or something. It is not - it is the OpenOffice.Org community in exile, a stakeholder in the future of the project, a resource within the community. The art of the possible here is about exploring ways to make things work for the open source community, nothing to do with competitors in markets. This is not a standards community, nor is it a 501(c)6 like Eclipse. By the way, I don't work for Sun any more. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:24 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM: = I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue creating, building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all the locales it is today, along with an estimate for the IPMT of how big the task is, whether it's adequately staffed, what infrastructure it needs and so on. Your focus on the ODF market is laudable and you know I've been supporting similar aims for even longer than you have. But my big concern remains making sure that throughout 2011 there's a fresh, live consumer binary being produced to keep the enormous existing user-base satisfied. No Simon, it was not in the email. I didn't think it was necessary to repeat what is already in the very first paragraph of the proposal on the wiki: OpenOffice.org is comprised of (6) personal productivity applications: word processor, spreadsheet, presentation graphics, drawing, equation editor, and database. OpenOffice.org supports Windows, Solaris, Linux and Macintosh operation systems. OpenOffice.org is localized, supporting over 110 languages worldwide. I don't see a problem here. There are competitors in this market that release only every three years. They seem to have users. There are some that release updates every quarter. They have users as well. And some do something in the middle. They have users as well. So there is no one true answer here. The OOo releases have recently been like: 3.0 Oct 2008 3.1 May 2009 3.2 Feb 2010 3.3 Jan 2011 So the most recent interval was a one year cycle between releases. Even with the overhead and resulting downtime of moving our tent to Apache, I don't see why we couldn't aim for a stable 3.4 in Q1 2012 or earlier and not frustrate customer expectations.Not saying we couldn't do something more aggressive than that. I'm all in favor of getting to a more steady heart beat, say quarterly betas or something like that. Release early and often. But the details are for the project to work out. The release cadence for point releases is more frequent than that. S.
Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a division of markets conversation?
I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the LibreOffice part of the OOo community right from the start. S. On Jun 6, 2011 2:56 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. S.
Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse me for interrupting ... On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/ nor http://www.openoffice.org/license.html are mentioning the MPL. What's right? I believe that during the talks between Robert and LibreOffice, LibreOffice asked to have the freed OpenOffice relicensed to LGPLv3/MPL, so that the wrongs are fixed and everyone is happy. But Robert got confused and says above that LibreOffice is already licensed under the LGPLv3/MPL. I believe it's a bit more complex than that. The following is my understanding of the history and situation, I'd welcome corrections where I have misunderstood or misremembered or my summary omits key details. IBM has been trying for years to get the OOo code put back under a permissive license. It used to be under SISSL (a now-deprecated permissive open source license) and LGPLv2, and in those days IBM was free to build Symphony without any reference to OOo. Its worth noting that they never contributed any code at all to the community when OOo was under that permissive license. Once OOo licensing was updated to LGPLv3 only, IBM could no longer operate in this way. There were extensive negotiations, first on a semi-open community basis and then between Sun and IBM. The result was apparently a private licensing arrangement. Under that arrangement, IBM was again able to use the OOo code. Under this arrangement, they also contributed very little code (although at least a bit). In discussions with community members before the fork, IBMs representatives indicated that if the code project was licensed under a weak copyleft license like MPL or CDDL, they would be able and willing to both use it and work within the community. In order to ensure IBM would be able to participate in LibreOffice in the event the rest of the code was relicensed in a way they could accept, the community there has ensured that contributions have been made under both MPL and LGPLv3. Since the inbound code LibreOffice uses is currently mainly under LGPLv3, LibreOffice is licensed under LGPLv3 outbound at present even though inbound new contributions are under both licenses. This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went to a fair bit of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on Rob's blog and elsewhere. Hope that helps, S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent. S.
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent. Please don't put words in my mouth. I've not and I won't. Please chill. I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context. That's not denying my assertion. I also encourage people to read FSF Board member Bradley Kuhn's clarifications: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18558 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18807 S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. Agreed, but that assumes that LO is just a build/deliverables/consumer focused entity, and doesn't have a developer interest as well. As long as they still do, then licensing is important. That's not my intent. Rather, I have tried to capture in writing the things I think it's easy to agree about and leave unsaid the things it is certain will cause an argument. Indeed, I believe that's close to the definition of consensus. But I do believe the developer intent of TDF to be profoundly different from the general developer ethos of ASF, so even in those contentious areas where ideology will come into play I am still optimistic there are ways to collaborate if we have the will to make it happen. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recuse as mentor?
I really can't see that as necessary Jim. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
That is what I was suggesting and which Rob claims he won't need because its
so easy.
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 3, 2011 3:23 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a
release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM
with Symphony. This is not rocket science.
I am impressed by your optimism. Let us see how quickly you personally
manage a windows build yourself of what ends up inside the initial
Apache code-base (incidentally, I'm eagerly awaiting that myself, when
do we see it ? only after acceptance of the podling?). We could even
have a small race :-)
Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure,
then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of
cooperation can occur.
After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide
the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)...
Just an idea...
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads together. Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to: 1. The podling goes along as suggested. 2. The TDF continues business as usual. That's so far from being a valid interpretation of my proposal I almost don't know where to begin. What I am saying is that ASF is being entrusted with something it has never had before; a consumer brand of inestimable value, combined with an enormous, non-technical end-user community. OpenOffice.org is probably the most recognised open source consumer brand after Linux. Servicing that responsibility is a massive task. I've seen a few e-mails with people with hand-waving it away (how hard can it be? etc) but those of us with experience of OpenOffice know that it's daunting. If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am not), I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and not from an undefined point in the future after which Apache has a serious reputational problem with that end-user community and a serious enforcement problem with that trademark. Since I did not see any hint of this in the proposal, my suggestion for how to deal with it from day one is to explore co-operation with LibreOffice, who have the build infrastructure, distribution infrastructure, translation and localisation infrastructure and indeed marketing infrastructure already in place, following eight months of hard work on their part. Ask them if they would be willing to create OpenOffice.org-the-binary-download for you. Ask them to host that binary download. Then as the Apache project falls into place, continue to collaborate for the good of the open source community. color me confused: first Simon slams the ASF for not actively engaging TDF and others (although we, of course, did) but now his suggestion is to basically ignore each other... Actually I thought my whole e-mail was pretty reasonable and in fact a call for ASF and TDF /not/ to ignore each other. But apparently my lame attempts to talk of collaboration and conciliation are slamming and the people who are flinging mud at TDF are just fine and get no rebuke from the ASF President. I must have done a terrible writing job... S.
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote: Ahhh... Yes I see something missing from Simons mail here. I assumed that the LibreOffice distribution would gradually migrate to using the core components proposed here (Apache ODFSuite as Simin called it) and thus collaboration on those components would also migrate here. Yes, that's exactly what I assumed would happen in time. But my e-mail was already TL;DR :-) If I understand correctly the donations from Oracle are not going to enable us to build an appropriately licenced end user product without significant work. Furthermore, the proposal and various press releases seem to indicate that A key focus of this project will be componentisation of the code base making it easier to reuse. That is also my understanding. That's also why it's so important to have a plan for how to sustain the end-user binary at least at a no-worse-than-now level while the Apache project works out what has to go, what can stay, what needs rewriting and so on. I may be being naive, I prefer to think I'm an optimist. Me too! S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented just for showing up. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Cmon Joe, Simon's PoV has been clear from his tweets, unless he has changed his mind... If I am mis-representing his stance, Simon's a big boy and can tell me where I'm wrong and I'll admit I was wrong. Does he say that *both* TDF and the ASF has the opportunity? No, just the ASF. Maybe that is a nit, but of such nits confusion arises. On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled out his position. As I read it, we could license the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation for, as Simon put it, business as usual distributions. If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event upon which that license terminates, and the new stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code under the mark. - Original Message From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community? On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote: Hi Florian, I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up at Apache or any other entity. Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any other foundation. So we are where we are. We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what open means. My way or the highway talk - from any side - is detestable. ASF has the opportunity to reject the bait to head down the path of ideological conflict, choose a conciliatory path that respects the existing community and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being transferred) for everyone's good. Let's be honest: by collaborate you mean have the ASF simply xfer the code and the trademark to TDF and walk away... At least, that is the strong impression you give. Please correct me if I'm wrong. - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense all of the contributions it has received. As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license agreement, so is unable to relicense the last 8 months of work under any license incompatible with the ones used by those contributions. Unable is a strong word. I given that we are talking about historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be possible to identify and reach out to those who made these contributions. These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights. In fact, these people can readily add themselves to the wiki right now and send in an ICLA and commit these changes themselves once the project arrives here; at which point the TDF has a clean base upon which to build. Unable is the correct word. /TDF/ is unable to to relicense. If all those individuals choose to commit changes at ASF they can naturally do so, but that wasn't how I understood Noel's question. S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept the podling. These are decisions the podling should be making. They can only make those decisions if they know they have to make them. I think it's very material to your vote whether the proposers have in fact recognised the importance of the consumer brand and the non-technical end-user community. I strongly suggest Apache take this seriously and not surrender to hand-waving answers about it. S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for collaboration to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim while your project sorts itself out. S.
Re: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote: Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting: I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the related communities. If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that explained in the proposal before we vote on it. +1 (not binding) The ASF uses the Apache License. Some people will only contribute to projects under a copyleft license. Arguments about these lines have - historically - produce a lot of flames but little useful illumination. (So I'd like to avoid another round ;-) What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would definitely like to see the proposal explain whether this would be possible and practical. More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating ideological division as a given... S.
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am not), I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and not from an undefined point in the future after which Apache has a serious reputational problem with that end-user community and a serious enforcement problem with that trademark. As we all want to know... we are not idiots. I must have missed the e-mails asking about it. Can you give me pointers please? S.
Re: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating ideological division as a given... Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... that *is* a given. If people are wondering if we would change our license or even allow dual-licensing, then that is not going to happen. Not anything in particular about OOo. It's just the fact. I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer deliverable from Day One. That will inevitably involve a mix of licenses as the code you're receiving from Oracle has a mix of licenses, so it's not obvious to me why licensing is relevant *on day one*. Let's be honest: by collaborate you mean have the ASF simply xfer the code and the trademark to TDF and walk away... At least, that is the strong impression you give. Please correct me if I'm wrong. No, not at all. I'm suggesting ASF ask LibreOffice to help it out of a bind temporarily. And I offer a personal apology to Simon... Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the start of the week on the service Sam won't let me name offended you. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM: Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code from ASF into their products. This is true, but would you call that collaboration? ABSOLUTELY. Q: How does the TDF work with the ASF? A: Snarf our code at will. :-) Actually I am pretty sure there will be upstream code from TDF. Maybe not everything, but they are good people with a heart for OpenOffice. S.
Re: OpenOffice - Wiki - Required Resources - Subversion vs. Mercurial vs. Git
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main code and it didn't work well for a project this size. Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the problems you experienced with Subversion. Our infrastructure team, working closely over the years with the Subversion team, has done wonders to get Subversion working for the ASF. We've often been their canary in the coal mine. :-) Right. I know that the Apache Subversion team would love to hear about any problems. As Noel mentions, the ASF repository is quite huge. We're over 1.1 million revisions, containing a couple hundred projects and millions and millions of lines of code. We've got international replication, backups, security, awesome admins, and a development team to keep it all running smoothly. I can understand people desiring the Git style of workflow, but that is different from a problem inherent to Subversion itself. So... if you guys *did* have issues with the tool, then we'd really like to know! I can fix it... my dad's got an awesome set of tools... Just to drag the point here from the other thread where it was made, the problem is less the size of the code (although it is enormous and will make a great stress test for the SVN team :-) ) and more the need for frequent bi-directional merges between the different platforms where OOo is semi-independently implemented. The nature of the project makes a DVCS much more suitable which is why we switched to Mercurial and not Subversion originally - Subversion was very popular for other projects at Sun. S.
Re: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer deliverable from Day One. Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution. Didn't I suggest that first? :-) I took your business as usual meaning that TDF simply continued doing their dev/build/release. My point, and maybe you meant it as well, is that they also take on the build/release of OOo on our behalf. In fact, on Day One of the podling, you could even redirect download.openoffice.org to download.libreoffice.org temporarily if they would agree to include suitable explanatory information. Anything to make sure the consumer downloads (a) are there and (b) are sustained. I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there yet. There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, especially on Day One. I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to confidently +1 it. Not strictly replying to the above point, but no proposal is expected to have every possible contingency planned... That is so the podling has the flexibility to determine what needs to be done. TrafficServer, for example, noted the TM issue but the proposal didn't (iirc) determine *what* to do; subversion and spamassissin also had to worry about continuation of code and releases, but again, the proposal didn't define a specific course of action. The intent is to start a podling so *it* can work those issues, handle pre-existing commitments, etc... Again, completely understood and very reasonable. I'm just suggesting gaining assurance that the magnitude of servicing the consumer brand and binary is understood and not just dismissed as SMOP. As of right now the text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that openoffice.orgresolve to a working and current site without interruption that it deserves a mention (preferably a plan - yes, unusual for an incubator proposal) too. S.
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On 3 Jun 2011, at 21:14, Jim Jagielski wrote: Posts such as: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division as well as almost forcing the other side to take a defensive stance. It's a shame. Looks like a journalist writing a story about LO's 3.4 releaser to me. They like to stir, you know :-) S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote: Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to the community to add such a tone to the proposal. What do you think? The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it! What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be very reticent indeed about editing. S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote: Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to the community to add such a tone to the proposal. What do you think? The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it! What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be very reticent indeed about editing. Rules? :-) From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html : The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list. Got any special rules for where the incoming community is already divided? :-) As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be no interference. If it turns out that there are groups with multiple visions, we can split this page into separate proposals. Defacement of the proposal will be quickly reverted. So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to edit and not just Apache members or the project's proposers. S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
I suggest: The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual licensing choices. There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of the podlet. S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Given the generally positive response I've edited that text into the wiki. S. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent. Thanks, Simon! On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: I suggest: The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual licensing choices. There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of the podlet. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Discussion with TDF/LO people (was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
Sorry, hit send too soon. On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Now... with that said. Consider a typical person from the ASF who might want to do that. Say.. like myself. I don't know what list to subscribe to. (name only one!) ... If somebody can say what list that ASF people could subscribe to, then something like this could happen. TDF/LO's mailing lists are listed here: http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists I subscribe to Announce and Steering-Discuss - I suggest the latter would be a good place to go say hi and offer to be helpful. S.
Re: Discussion with TDF/LO people (was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:23, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it? Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone associated with this proposal on the LibreOffice and Document Foundation lists I subscribe to. I heard about it through personal e-mails and then the press. Did I miss the e-mails too? Jim sent something; maybe that was just to a few individuals? (Italo and Louis, at least) I thought something had gone out since people have been showing up. Must've been private. Personally I think it would be great for someone to show up on both the openoffice.org and Document Foundation mailing lists and say hey, I know you've felt the ground rumbling, are there any questions I can help with. But maybe I'm naive :-) S.
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
Rob - their mailing list is over at steering-disc...@documentfoundation.org, details here: http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists S. On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:09 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following questions. This would help us understand what room there is for negotiation and what is not worth discussing at all. For willing to consider it, I mean in the context of a negotiation where there is some give and take. I'm not asking if you're willing to do this for nothing. I just want to understand what are the deal breakers and where we should be focusing discussions. I'm not interested in debating these questions in this thread, aside from clarifications. We're debating these issues in other threads. I'm just trying to see if we can agree on which of these directions, if any, is likely to be fruitful and which ones, if any, are fundamentally impossible for TDF/LO. I think we've given straightforward answers on where ASF is flexible and where it cannot budge. I'd welcome similar clarity from TDF/LO, in the spirit of moving forward these discussions. Regards, -Rob 1) Require Apache 2.0 licence for future contributions to LO, possibly in addition with other compatible licenses. a) Not willing to consider it b) Willing to consider it 2) Encourage and facilitate TDF members signing an Apache CLA on their past LO contributions a) Not willing to consider it b) Willing to consider it 3) Encourage and facilitate TDF members contributing their work to both Apache and TDF under respective licenses a) Not willing to consider it b) Willing to consider it 4) Join Apache and do the core development work there, with LibreOffice being a downstream consumer of the core, collaborating closely with Apache via patches, defect reports, etc. a) Not willing to consider it b) Willing to consider it 5) Join Apache and consolidate all development there, under the name OpenOffice a) Not willing to consider it b) Willing to consider it 6) Join Apache and consolidate all development there, under the name LibreOffice. a) Not willing to consider it b) Willing to consider it 7) Join Apache and consolidate all development there, under the name ODF Suite. a) Not willing to consider it b) Willing to consider it - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On 3 Jun 2011, at 02:32, Allen Pulsifer wrote: Hello Simon, This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contributions and insert them into an Apache Licensed project without the approval of those contributors. I believe LibreOffice accepts contributions under any license that is compatible with LGPLv3, including the Apache license. But anyway, contributions can be made to the New Thing project and then used by the Business-As-Usual project if that's what the contributor wants. Second, I am strongly against adopting any name other than OpenOffice. The world is looking for an official distribution. If the Apache project does not adopt the OpenOffice name, then someone else will, and this will confuse users even more. I am proposing that Apache designate the business-as-usual project as the current official distribution on its behalf. There would be far greater confusion if there was /no/ official OpenOffice distribution for many months, which seems a risk at the moment. For example, even as we speak, a small company in San Francisco has filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the name OpenOffice. A copy of this application is attached in PDF format. This company is the current operator of http://openoffice.us.com and apparently, they envision that they will become the exclusive distributor of OpenOffice. Obviously, that must be stopped, which I was planning to post on in more detail. The bottom line however is that the only way to stop that is for a recognized organization to step up and distribute the official OpenOffice distribution. In which case Apache should get the trademark from Oracle as soon as possible, put it to use on a valid distribution as soon as possible, and challenge the application. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
