Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: ... Simon, Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment: potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users By one definition, complementary means non-overlapping, pieces that are I find the query to be pedantic. We are not formulating a multi-national standards agreement here. Words are just words, and this is just a proposal to the Incubator PMC. Throw them on paper and move along. It is important that we form a common understanding on what we are voting on. I don't want some participants to be voting on a proposal with one understanding that there will be no overlap and subsequently to be surprised when their understanding does not match what actually is done. Simon's statement seemed pretty clear: LibreOffice complements anything that we do here at Apache. There is no need for additional constraint or precision. It gets across the basic concept. 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. Cheers, -g It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is -- Mr Clinton Cute quote, but the license question still remains. - Sam Ruby - 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: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com 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. Just to be clear: you disagree with enumerating other complements that might apply in other situations? S. - Sam Ruby - 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
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM: 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. I'll assert that there is a subset of participants on this list, taking part in this discussion and whom have added their names to the proposed committers list who feel strongly that the proposed project's efforts should include a strong end-user focus. I'm willing to believe that there is also a subset that thinks otherwise. If these difference can be resolved, that would be best. But if not, I'll suggest that this is a fundamental difference of vision which probably cannot be reconciled within a single proposal. -Rob - 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 June 2011 13:37, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM: 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. I'll assert that there is a subset of participants on this list, taking part in this discussion and whom have added their names to the proposed committers list who feel strongly that the proposed project's efforts should include a strong end-user focus. That is certainly true of myself and I suspect Manfred Reiter. We are both interested in certification and marketing as we both have professional backgrounds in vocational education and training. I was formerly education lead for OOo and Manfred formerly co-lead for the German project. We are currently collaborating in EU funded projects. I wrote an application for funding that is being presented through the German National Agency for an OpenOffice.org certification project - even if this application failed we can do others and the focus has to be impact on end-users. I'm willing to believe that there is also a subset that thinks otherwise. If these difference can be resolved, that would be best. But if not, I'll suggest that this is a fundamental difference of vision which probably cannot be reconciled within a single proposal. If for some organisational reason it is better for us to be in camp foo rather than camp bar we have no problem. We just want to help people get free and open source office productivity tools. We will work cooperatively with anyone who has similar broad goals. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
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. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war ~ John Adams - 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: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code from ASF into their products. (and typo in the first sentence) On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:03, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new options coming up. So I'd like to record the state of the issue. If there is consensus on this formulation, I'll place it in the wiki. Of course, if the discussion advances the issue or positions move, I can always go back and revise, -Rob =Collabration with LibreOffice= LibreOffice uses a dual licesne LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects. This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management infrastructure, etc. And if TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would welcome that as well. We believe that in practice, the extent to which we may actually collaborate will be determined by the licence compatibility issue rather than any unwillingness to collaborate. --- - 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
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: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/03/2011 02:33:21 PM: 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. Can you state this in the form of a collaborative activity? I'm being neutral as to the intent or particulars on the wiki. I'm noting the kinds of activities. In the end the nature of the activity, with respect to the license and ASF policy, not the intent of the collaboration, is what will determine whether it is permissible. For example, mixing GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 with the intent of feeding starving children is not permissible, but providing a library that Wall Street tycoons can use to design butterscotch pudding swimming pools is permissible. Saying collaboration...to protect the OpenOffice consumer is not really sufficient. -Rob - 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 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. Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified code into LO. If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues. I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. I'm not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking that the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent in the license. Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous. They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd. If you're going to write a section on collaboration, then it must include how they can use our code. ... Cheers, -g - 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 06/03/2011 12:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50,robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Greg Steingst...@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. Although, IF the two code bases continue to diverge, it would probably get prohibitively difficult to lift code in many cases. -- Leif - 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: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 02:57:48 PM: 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. This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be talking about what collaborative activities we foresee undertaking. We can't speak for others. We can only talk about what we're willing to do. Since ASF mandates the Apache 2.0 licence, there is zero additional the *project* needs to do to allow others to Snarf our code at will. Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified code into LO. If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues. That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that should be noted. There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating version numbers, etc. I can add that. I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. I'm not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking that the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent in the license. Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous. They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd. I see this distinction: -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice versus -- An extraordinary collaboration I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former. But that might be best emphasized in the community section of the proposal where we talk about the larger ecosystem. We can highlight their importance. But I'm not seeing anything that speaks to any collaboration that is qualitatively different than what any other downstream consumer does. Different in importance perhaps, but not different in nature. If you're going to write a section on collaboration, then it must include how they can use our code. The Apache 2.0 license states how they can use our code, right? But let me see if I can get your point worked in. We probably don't disagree on this, just maybe where to stick it in the proposal. Regards, -Rob - 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 15:12, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: ... This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal. Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive. The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we want to see here. ... Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified code into LO. If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues. That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that should be noted. There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating version numbers, etc. I can add that. I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. I'm not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking that the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent in the license. Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous. They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd. I see this distinction: -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice versus -- An extraordinary collaboration I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former. Could be? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be. I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this email now. Come back later. -g - 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
Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: ... This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal. Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive. The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we want to see here. Greg, TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete suggestions, fire away. But please do not accuse me of excluding them from the proposal or purity or division of community or suggest that I'm pretending anything. It seems to me that you are being very quick to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from. Please be civil and assume that I am being sincere. I will strive to do the same of you. ... Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified code into LO. If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues. That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that should be noted. There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating version numbers, etc. I can add that. I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. I'm not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking that the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent in the license. Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous. They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd. I did not say one of the crowd. Please don't put words into my mouth. I merely said that the target of this proposal is the IPMC, and suggested that we ought to respect their time and not list things that are inherent with the Apache 2.0 license and ASF policy. We should draw attention to any special considerations that we foresee. The fact that Apache 2.0 code can be used is not special. If the Lord Almighty decided to use our code, but did nothing more, I would not note that fact in the collaboration section of the wiki. But I would note Him among important downstream users. I see this distinction: -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice versus -- An extraordinary collaboration I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former. Could be? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be. A citation please, Greg. I have not seen anyone from TDF/LO state that they *will* take Apache code. Thus the conditional statement. Do you have a better way of saying it that is also an accurate way of saying it? I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this email now. Come back later. Regards, -Rob - 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
Rob, I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not shut the door in the very beginning and thus omit collaboration with other parties. Tho, whether those parties accept the invitation or not can't probably assured by the proposal BUT at least you tried your very best. 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? Cheers Daniel On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: ... This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal. Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive. The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we want to see here. ... Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified code into LO. If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues. That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that should be noted. There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating version numbers, etc. I can add that. I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. I'm not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking that the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent in the license. Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous. They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd. I see this distinction: -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice versus -- An extraordinary collaboration I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former. Could be? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be. I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this email now. Come back later. -g - 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
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
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! Cheers Daniel - Sam Ruby - 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 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. 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. S. - Sam Ruby - 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
I started the process by adding a couple of TBD's. My little vision is that IPMC members might add notes of the form: I cannot vote +1 for this proposal until this section addresses issue X' When all those comments are gone, we have, in effect, voted. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:17 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. 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. S. - Sam Ruby - 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
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 04:11:43 PM: Rob, I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not shut the door in the very beginning and thus omit collaboration with other parties. Tho, whether those parties accept the invitation or not can't probably assured by the proposal BUT at least you tried your very best. Daniel, please be concrete and critical, not accusatory. Please critique the proposal, not the person. I attach the latest version of this section of the proposal. I am unable to find the part of the proposal you refer to when you say it shuts the door in the very beginning. Can you please point that out? You also use the word invitation. This is not an invitation. This is a section of the incubation proposal. The audience is the IPMC to inform their vote on the proposal. I think we owe them our candor and our honest appraisal, not a press release. I'm not opposed to the *project* doing a formal invitation to TDF/LO, and in fact I'd welcome that. An invitation would obviously take on a different form. But I don't think this proposal is the right vehicle for doing that. As always, I welcome improvements to this proposal. Regards, -Rob =Collabration with LibreOffice= LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects. This could include collaboration on 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. Additionally, collaboration could include LibreOffice use of project deliverables per the Apache 2.0 license and their reporting of defects. If TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would welcome that as well. We believe that, in practice, the degree to which we are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the licence compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to collaborate. - 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 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
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 05:17:46 PM: 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. 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. And if we split the page into separate proposals (not unlikely given the clear differences of vision expressed on the list already), which one is voted on? All of them? -Rob - 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
Please do not turn this thread into *ANOTHER* however polite argument the possible construction of the community. 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. Yes: As Sam wrote: . Defacement of the proposal will be quickly reverted. - 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
And if we split the page into separate proposals (not unlikely given the clear differences of vision expressed on the list already), which one is voted on? All of them? Rob, Splitting the page would be an extreme situation, and it would indicate, to me, that the incubator PMC is faced with multiple competing groups of people proposing multiple incompatible visions for a podling. I'm not sure it's ever happened. My organization instinct is to write that, in this case, the IPMC would vote on ALL of them, and possibly end up approving more than one. Now, before anyone tees off on that, I realize that this would be an absurd situation. The ASF members in the room here, I think, can all agree that it is our goal to help you all avoid reaching this pass. On some other thread specific to the particular point of controversy, I for one am happy to try to keep pouring oil on the troubled waves. - 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 16:01, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: ... This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal. Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive. The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we want to see here. Greg, TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete suggestions, fire away. But please do not accuse me of excluding them from the proposal or purity or division of community or suggest that I'm pretending anything. It seems to me that you are being very quick to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from. Please be civil and assume that I am being sincere. I will strive to do the same of you. It is the pattern of query and response that I am objecting to. Consider the string of emails: R: The first email didn't mentioned anything about LO consuming our source. G: I said it should, as that is a very real possibility R: You said is that really collaboration? G: Of course it is, and here is why R: this is *our* proposal. not theirs. We don't need to talk about them. G: give up It is like pulling teeth to have you simply recognize that LO is a part of this proposal and the eventual community. It's like you don't even have that in your *mindset*, and that very much scares me. When you argue to *not* put them into the proposal, then I call that exclusive rather than inclusive. And we should note that collaboration also means a tight relationship between our development and theirs. That they will consume our source, and we should incorporate that into our plans. But at each point, there is some pedantic rationale around wording and phrasing (ref: An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice versus An extraordinary collaboration). So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that including them by reference [to the Apache License] is a cop-out. Several times, you fallen back to but they can just use the code like anybody else. But they're AREN'T ANYBODY ELSE. bye. -g - 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 5:20 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: 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? :-) There are two common patterns at the ASF: RTC and CTR, which are Review The Commit and Commit Then Review. Most places operate with a CTR policy. If it turns out that there are controversial topics that need to be ironed out on list, then I encourage people to voluntarily follow a Review Then Commit policy, i.e., discuss proposed modifications here, attempt to build consensus and then proceed based on that consensus. Non-controversial changes can continue with as CTR. - Sam Ruby - 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 5:42 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: ... This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal. Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive. The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we want to see here. Greg, TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete suggestions, fire away. But please do not accuse me of excluding them from the proposal or purity or division of community or suggest that I'm pretending anything. It seems to me that you are being very quick to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from. Please be civil and assume that I am being sincere. I will strive to do the same of you. It is the pattern of query and response that I am objecting to. Consider the string of emails: R: The first email didn't mentioned anything about LO consuming our source. G: I said it should, as that is a very real possibility R: You said is that really collaboration? G: Of course it is, and here is why R: this is *our* proposal. not theirs. We don't need to talk about them. G: give up It is like pulling teeth to have you simply recognize that LO is a part of this proposal and the eventual community. It's like you don't even have that in your *mindset*, and that very much scares me. When you argue to *not* put them into the proposal, then I call that exclusive rather than inclusive. I may have failed at mentoring. This could also be a bit of a telephone game where what I thought I said and what ultimately resulted after passing through several people's retelling is not recognizable to me. My principles were to suggest that people focus on what they bring to the table, and to and to actively seek out others and get THEM to identify what they bring to the table. Again, the end result clearly did not come out that way, and I will see what I can do to rectify that. - Sam Ruby - 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
Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 05:42:14 PM: So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that including them by reference [to the Apache License] is a cop-out. Several times, you fallen back to but they can just use the code like anybody else. But they're AREN'T ANYBODY ELSE. But I'm not giving up on you, Greg, or this section of the proposal. I am attaching this section of the proposal as it stands now. Would you or anyone else like to contribute any improvements? Personal attacks, please, to /dev/null. Regards, -Rob LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects. This could include collaboration on 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. Additionally, collaboration could include LibreOffice use of project deliverables per the Apache 2.0 license and their reporting of defects. If TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would welcome that as well. We believe that, in practice, the degree to which we are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the licence compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to collaborate. - 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
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
+1 (I like the positive tone that tries to omit words having a negative connotation) Cheers Daniel On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, 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
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Simon, As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about this suggested path. In the end the people who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating or not...But, here's my +1 that implies that i'd like folks who are signing on to this podling do their best to make this happen. -- dims On 06/03/2011 06:26 PM, dsh wrote: +1 (I like the positive tone that tries to omit words having a negative connotation) Cheers Daniel On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, 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 - 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
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 3 Jun 2011, at 23:01, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: If TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would welcome that as well. It's not necessary to suggest TDF changes it's chosen licence. It's true that if they did new possibilities would be opened but why should we expect them to do so. Some will find the suggestion insulting others will be happy to contribute their code to shared code under the Apache License 2.0 where it can be reused in LibreOffice, there is no new for a wholesale change of philosophy. We believe that, in practice, the degree to which we are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the licence compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to collaborate Again, I don't think this is necessary, but if the first sentence (above) is removed I find it more reasonable. Personally I'd remove both. Ross - 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
As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about this suggested path. In the end the people who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating or not...But, here's my +1 that implies that i'd like folks who are signing on to this podling do their best to make this happen. Of course, there are many things on which it would be good to get input or feedback of the TDF community. But we (and I'm using the abstract we here), should not be so self-important that we insist they come here to give us their input. Someone (someone like a sponsor of the proposal), needs to head over to their place and engage them there. That it simply common courtesy, that when you want to get someone's involvement, you have the courtesy to pay them a visit at their place. Allen - 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
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
RE: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more. If we get into a Wikipedia edit-reversion war, I am sure that there are wiser heads who will intervene. (It is unfortunate that this wiki doesn't come with Discuss pages, but that doesn't mean we can't introduce one or more as our own convention.) My suggestion is to take small steps. For bigger steps, it is probably a good idea to make new pages and have focused discussion on those pages until there is some apparent consensus on merging back into the main proposal text. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktimkdxoce12t-xggq5ls+nmkluo...@mail.gmail.com%3e Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 14:21 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO [ ... ] 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. - 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
Discussion should appear here, rather than on the wiki. Leaving quick questions and thoughts is fine, but for actual discussion: here. Cheers, -g On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:11, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more. If we get into a Wikipedia edit-reversion war, I am sure that there are wiser heads who will intervene. (It is unfortunate that this wiki doesn't come with Discuss pages, but that doesn't mean we can't introduce one or more as our own convention.) My suggestion is to take small steps. For bigger steps, it is probably a good idea to make new pages and have focused discussion on those pages until there is some apparent consensus on merging back into the main proposal text. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktimkdxoce12t-xggq5ls+nmkluo...@mail.gmail.com%3e Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 14:21 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO [ ... ] 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. - 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
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: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/03/2011 06:16:22 PM: 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. Simon, Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment: potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users By one definition, complementary means non-overlapping, pieces that are incomplete separately, but sum to 100%. By that definition the statement could be read as saying that LO would focus on Linux, Windows and Mac consumer end-users, and Apache would not. Would you agree that majority of users of this code base on Windows and Mac are using OpenOffice.org today, not LibreOffice? I'd grant you that the opposite is likely true for Linux. So by that definition of complementary, the statement in the wiki is not really true. Assuming that is not what you intended to say, I hope it is not controversial to fix this in the wiki as: The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org community, with an established focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. (the waffling with potentially doesn't seem to do anything in the sentence) -Rob - 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 22:25, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: ... Simon, Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment: potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users By one definition, complementary means non-overlapping, pieces that are I find the query to be pedantic. We are not formulating a multi-national standards agreement here. Words are just words, and this is just a proposal to the Incubator PMC. Throw them on paper and move along. Simon's statement seemed pretty clear: LibreOffice complements anything that we do here at Apache. There is no need for additional constraint or precision. It gets across the basic concept. Cheers, -g It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is -- Mr Clinton - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org