Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 06/02/2011 03:40 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Florian Effenbergerflo...@documentfoundation.org wrote on 06/02/2011 06:39:12 AM: This would not only be about reinventing the wheel, but also about splitting the community, leading to disadvantages for end-users, contributors, and enterprises. I'd like to challenge your assertion here, about splitting the community, a nonsensical meme I'm hearing repeated in several venues. First, would you disagree if I asserted, as a fact, that IBM is not a member of LibreOffice? And that neither is Oracle? And that no initial contributors currently on the wiki are TDF/LinbreOffice coders? Maybe, but the LO people are the ones in the OSS community, and I don't see any oracle FTEs signing up for this. It seems to me, that in the Open Source world, TDF is the place for ongoing post-OOo dev, just as Jenkins is the successor to Hudson. I think we can all point to many smaller such projects in this area that have thrived over the years based on community volunteers, with relatively little corporate backing, e.g., AbiWord, Gnumeric, etc. There is nothing wrong with this. They are fine projects and have many unique qualities. But at at the same time, it is perfectly reasonable for others to have more ambitious goals, the goal of bringing this code base to scale in the market, a goal that can best (IMHO) be reached with strong corporate backing, working side-by-side with independent developers, facilitated by a permissive license and an foundation of unimpeachable reputation and stability. My desktop runs Linux. Lots of community there: volunteer and paid. I don't see it's license being a hindrance. What matters is that everyone is working together - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/06/2011 19:22, Sam Ruby wrote: Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and I read it as a bona fide attempt by IBM to shove the project down the throat of The Apache Foundation. I hope we don't need to deliberate for a full month, but I do agree Make that a minimum of ninety days. (I realize that that is more than nine times the average stay in incubator status.) Of course, if you guys want to be really blind sided by things that you should have known before voting. jonathon - -- If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting. If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth requesting. DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN7LO2AAoJEERA7YuLpVrV0OcIAM4SbwT2d0Lqr5pJqEAx2QvB +fUsKOx4IryskMcYAMlmhb98a+Dl/jvDsOarTAYLmvg5bpFGrO0QDM/hm8raNIkT OeKmFgvt3WGT1rQuuzqyG77++up+A55qMBBgUAaTTjQEWraXa4VK2Se8SuTURJzE Hc2H061epYidnF4QhQVakwf/3rtMPh5rD1Ut8hQPYLsndIbMe7xlzPoHkIxgYz37 /hxqPRZ+BSuynj9joiUJD4JxRIpNLmqfBeq1L6BF7F9Y4HEABvRhCijpEDstDbXS HQ4SL2cQxfQX3NIgACNa7lT4beBz0QwcZ4MgtL2gZPVnlu2D1O7G+Gg0/LmQoks= =Iam7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 06/03/2011 07:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: No, they don't. But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License, which makes it much easier to (quoting you, now), cooperate with ASF to make the two projects work as harmoniously as possible. Sorry, but - as an end user not too fond of corporations predating open source projects in order to produce their proprietary SW, I do not see this as an historic opportunity but as a huge mistake. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation email italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 06/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This is about working together. This is about building a developer and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip. Jim, please be aware that OOo end user community is just huge, but only a tiny fraction will show up on mailing lists (and most discussion will happen outside ASF mailing lists, because there are newsgroups and user groups and forums scattered around the net). Community development is slightly different at OOo, and definitely more challenging. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation email italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 Jun 2011, at 20:33, Leo Simons wrote:
Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first
arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :)
Strong +1 to that. This is a big decision, and some of us would like
to gauge reaction beyond the confines of this list before voting.
* Arguably you need _at least_ 3 mentors first.
If and when I satisfy myself on being +1 on the proposal, I'd be
prepared to put my name down. I've been doing less apache stuff
than I should of late!
[chop several good points]
One more point here: where are ASF's infra folks in this discussion?
This is going to put more burden than ${average-project} on them.
--
Nick Kew
Available for work, contract or permanent
http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Hello everyone, and thanks for the feedback to my initial mail. I've read many other messages and blog postings, and would like to focus on just a hand full of points that I think are crucial. Everything I leave out I do not leave out because I consider it unimportant in general, but because I think other aspects are more important for the moment. If there's a particular point you would like to have discussed, or a particular question I have overlooked, please ask - as said, I am happy to answer all of these as good as I can. Again, all replies here are my personal ones, as longtime volunteer contributor, and are not necessarily TDF statements. However, as we seem to agree in that a community is made out of individuals, this seems to be a good start. I first would like to answer the question, about whether I have mixed feelings or not. I share the TDF statement that we are happy that Oracle has taken this step, because giving assets to an independent organization is a good way to go, and a good start. That is what I find positive about that step - Oracle could also have simply decided to keep their assets and do nothing with them, or sell them to a commercial entity, so having it with a foundation is much better. So, it is positive to me that an independent foundation is involved. What - and this statement is what might have lead to confusion about my feelings - I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up at Apache or any other entity. Of course, people can choose, open source has the freedom to create derivative works, and the last that I want is to take those freedoms from anyone. I also have heard voices that we would be afraid of losing the driver's seat, or that we would be simply surprised and annoyed by the recent move, and therefore are against it, because we would have loved to see Oracle donating assets to us. Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure volunteer work, I am not backed by any corporation, and I invest a lot of time and heart into these things. Dedicating myself to be against someone or something, or acting just out of envy, is surely not what I plan to use my spare free time for. I am also sure that TDF and ASF can cooperate and act like adults. I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others can comment much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play together, and what ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be with or without other entities. I'd love to focus much more on the community and project side of things, and this is the part of my initial message that I still feel is unreplied: Why do we need a second project? From all those who propose the project at ASF, I have not heard much feedback on why this should happen, or otherwise said, on why TDF would be the wrong place to do it. I do not want to juggle with numbers, but I guess nobody can deny that TDF has set up a project, processes, infrastructure and an environment to work in, that there is a lot of stable basis. And I guess that nobody can doubt we have been as open and transparent as possible. And, looking at the activity inside the OpenOffice.org project, I guess nobody can deny either that at least the vast majority of the OpenOffice.org community has moved on to TDF. I am not saying 100%, I am not saying 99%, but saying that there was a vivid community activity within OpenOffice.org the last months would be wrong, too. This is the point where I would like to answer to the next question. Rob, you asked whether IBM is a member of LibreOffice. Formally spoken, corporations cannot become members of TDF, but only individuals can be, and if I understood it right, this is a similar approach than Apache takes. On the other hand, since September 28th, there has been lots of chances to get involved. We have weekly open calls, we have mailing lists, and you also have contact data of many of the Steering Committee members. If you are interested to get involved, you could have done so anytime. Discussion about the governance, about the location of the foundation, even about the license of future software contributions, have been taken in public, with enough time to react for anyone. IBM, as far as I know, did not participate in that, so it is not us to blame if for you now certain things are not as you would like to have them. Only those who raise their voice can be heard. So, as I feel my question in the first mail has not been answered yet, I'd like to repeat it, and extend it on one further question, to everyone who supports the incubator proposal: - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of a free office suite? - Why didn't those who propose this project talk to TDF about the issues that mattered to them and tried to change it? To me, the current approach feels like denying cooperation with TDF at any price,
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here [snip] I hope I replied to all questions asked. If I missed something, this was not on purpose, so feel free to ask again, and I will reply to the best of my knowledge. I'd like to discuss the license issue. From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License. If they were to do so, there would be frictionless exchange of code between the various groups. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
- What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of a free office suite? It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle, and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about that. However, to the extent that it was driven by Oracle, that should not be held against IBM, since IBM did not own the code and had to go with proposal that would be acceptable to Oracle. It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document Foundation is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03 AM: It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document Foundation is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF. Without commenting on the merit of the idea, a practical difficulty is that TDF is not able to change to Apache 2.0, since Oracle owns the copyright. LO is tied to GPL and can only add more lenient license choices for new contributions to their project. But even if they had free access under Apache 2.0 to OpenOffice or even if Oracle assigned them the copyright directly, they still have the issue of any deltas they have since LO started. GPL was designed to prevent this kind of collaboration. It is working as designed. -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote: - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of a free office suite? It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle, and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about that. However, to the extent that it was driven by Oracle, that should not be held against IBM, since IBM did not own the code and had to go with proposal that would be acceptable to Oracle. In the interest of full disclosure: I am an IBM employee. I am not in the division that works on Lotus Symphony nor do I have anything resembling a decision making capacity for an issue as large as this one. Nor do I speak for IBM. And finally, this clearly was Oracle's donation. That being said, it has been a rather eventful week or so for me as I have done everything I could to remove obstacles -- real or perceived -- to make this happen. And I am in a decision making capacity in the ASF. It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document Foundation is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF. If we could agree on a common license, all sorts of frictionless exchange would be possible, and all sorts of divisions of labor could be contemplated. In fact, the division of labor could be dynamic in that we could experiment with all sorts of different arrangements and find out what works best. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 6/3/2011 10:20 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others can comment much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play together, and what ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be with or without other entities. I'd love to focus much more on the community and project side of things, and this is the part of my initial message that I still feel is unreplied: Why do we need a second project? From all those who propose the project at ASF, I have not heard much feedback on why this should happen, or otherwise said, on why TDF would be the wrong place to do it. I don't believe these two issues above can be separated. I'd also remind that the communities have been split, and the time to have initially reached a compromise was before the fork, so there were obviously some irreconcilable points as the TDF drew its fundamental lines in the sand. So, as I feel my question in the first mail has not been answered yet, I'd like to repeat it, and extend it on one further question, to everyone who supports the incubator proposal: - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of a free office suite? I don't think anyone questions the value of a Free office suite at TDF, and in fact all here sort of expect one to persist at TDF with enhancements and community around Free/Libre Software supporters and platforms. In fact, all of the conversation in this thread suggests that there will remain a healthy ecosystem of various packing, training, and other services around this code base, as there has been for half a decade. - Why didn't those who propose this project talk to TDF about the issues that mattered to them and tried to change it? Because there is an ecosystem of BSD, OS/X and commercial vendors who do not so much leverage the Free aspect of Open Source. For this reason, some number of Sun/Oracle customers licensed the open code from them. IBM is one of these. The previous (singular) community supported both paid-commercial-closed works and free-libre-copyleft works with their contributions and their collaboration. Certainly even the paid-commercial-closed side of that world gave back much to the commons to improve the collaborative work, through direct contribution, or subsidizing Sun/Oracle contributions through their licensing fees, or both. Experience with Free/Libre Open Source Communities and Projects shows that such communities will not be flexible on licensing. Neither will the ASF Open Source Community be flexible. It seems this was a binary decision... It would appear that Oracle's OOo contribution to the ASF is meant to extend the freedom for developers to choose to open or close fork the code without the payment of royalties to Oracle. This puts every consumer in the same position as only the elite enjoyed previously, freedom to choose between an open or closed fork, and freedom to choose between contributing back or not. I am now convinced this is entirely a licensing decision, so I'll ask you, what was the probability for Oracle to convince TDF to maintain an Apache Licensed project consisting of their copyrighted code base? I'd politely suggest they believed there was no realistic chance they could persuade TDF to be the custodian of a BSD or Apache Licensed work. As custodian/sub-licensor of the donated code, the ASF (or TDF, if that were the case) retains the ability to modify the license. Clearly much of the interesting commercial activity surrounds online document services. As the case is today, the LGPL and MPL of the TDF's works offers no copyleft facilities for services, this would require an AGPL license. So given the choice between choosing a copyleft or permissive open source custodian, I can appreciate Oracle's decision for what it was, and really don't believe that conversations with TDF could have changed that outcome. This suggests no criticism of the TDF, it's mission or purpose, or the fruits of its labors, and if the ASF votes to adopt this new podling, I'm wishing the best of success to both efforts. I was initially sympathetic to the option that Oracle might be trying to un-copyleft their codebase, against the desires of a broader community. Personally I would have voted -1 as I would perceive this as violation of the spirit of our own mission, effectively the pawn in corporate shenanigans. But the fact that this was never copyleft, as pointed out to me initially by Sam, leads me to conclude that the ASF is, in fact, a good home to launch such an effort, and allows any actor from the general public to have the same advantages and privileges which were once reserved for the elite and most profitable consumers of this code. Just want to close this observation by pointing out that IBM has been a strongly reciprocal participant at a number of ASF projects, and I expect nothing else. I'm
RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Sam Ruby wrote: From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License. As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to replace their original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License. But I have questions about their ability to relicense new contributions, based on what I read at http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing policy linked from there. It does not seem clear to me that TDF can unilaterally relicense all contributions. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
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. Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure volunteer work, I am not backed by any corporation, and I invest a lot of time and heart into these things. Dedicating myself to be against someone or something, or acting just out of envy, is surely not what I plan to use my spare free time for. I am also sure that TDF and ASF can cooperate and act like adults. Yes, given where we are there is room for both. I'd like to see TDF leaders on the commit list. This would mean that there was a real link for collaboration. The main differences are the difference in licensing and TDF's broader support of the odf file format. It doesn't need to detract from TDF or its work. I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others can comment much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play together, and what ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be with or without other entities. I see the licensing as an opportunity. We can have both a permissive and copyleft development and those philosophically committed to either can find a good home. Ok, we need to work together to make the two code bases work together but that is a small price to pay for wider community cohesion. I'd love to focus much more on the community and project side of things, and this is the part of my initial message that I still feel is unreplied: Why do we need a second project? You might not need one, but it is there, it isn't really a choice, its a situation and we need to make the best of it. From all those who propose the project at ASF, I have not heard much feedback on why this should happen, or otherwise said, on why TDF would be the wrong place to do it. Its simply what Oracle did. We can't change it so we have to live with it. I do not want to juggle with numbers, but I guess nobody can deny that TDF has set up a project, processes, infrastructure and an environment to work in, that there is a lot of stable basis. And I guess that nobody can doubt we have been as open and transparent as possible. And, looking at the activity inside the OpenOffice.org project, I guess nobody can deny either that at least the vast majority of the OpenOffice.org community has moved on to TDF. I am not saying 100%, I am not saying 99%, but saying that there was a vivid community activity within OpenOffice.org the last months would be wrong, too. Look, TDF people did and are doing a great job. Probably you guys precipitated OOo going to a community foundation. Ok, its not 100% perfect but its better than some of the alternatives. So let's work together to make it work and we respect what TDF has achieved. We respect TDF if it wants to continue developing a copyleft distribution of OOo. What we can't change is what Oracle did, they bought Sun and the put the OOo IP with ASF. IBM, as far as I know, did not participate in that, so it is not us to blame if for you now certain things are not as you would like to have them. Only those who raise their voice can be heard. I think this works both ways. Probably things are not 100% perfect for anyone but compromises sometimes have to happen. So, as I feel my question in the first mail has not been answered yet, I'd like to repeat it, and extend it on one further question, to everyone who supports the incubator proposal: - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of a free office suite? I think this is the wrong question. There is nothing at all wrong with TDF, its just different in that it is developing code to a different license and that difference is important to some people. Oracle are not going to change and put the IP with TDF so we have to accept it and move on. That does not mean TDF is unimportant. It is just as important as before! Maybe more so as TDF leaders can become influential with OOo under ASF in a way they could not be with Oracle. - Why didn't those who propose this project talk to TDF about the issues that mattered to them and tried to change it? To me, the current approach feels like denying cooperation with TDF at any price, On the contrary, I see no reason why TDF people can not join the ASF and have influence beyond what they had with Sun or Oracle. Think of the Apache and LGPL as complementary rather than competing. without giving us even a feedback on what is wrong with the approach we are taking. Within any open source community, a very open and transparent communication is crucial and key to any vivid development, so not only for TDF, but also for those who have to decide on having the project as incubator at ASF, it would only be fair to get a reply. Again, I very much respect the Apache Foundation
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 June 2011 17:16, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License. As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to replace their original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License. But I have questions about their ability to relicense new contributions, based on what I read at http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing policy linked from there. It does not seem clear to me that TDF can unilaterally relicense all contributions. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org At least to start with they don't need to change anything. They can carry on producing a copyleft product and cooperate with ASF to make the two projects work as harmoniously as possible. -- 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Ian Lynch wrote: Noel J. Bergman: Sam Ruby wrote: From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License. As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to replace their original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License. But I have questions about their ability to relicense new contributions, based on what I read at http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing policy linked from there. It does not seem clear to me that TDF can unilaterally relicense all contributions. At least to start with they don't need to change anything. No, they don't. But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License, which makes it much easier to (quoting you, now), cooperate with ASF to make the two projects work as harmoniously as possible. At least some folks at TDF seem to feel slighted by recent developments. I understand, but they should not, at least from the ASF's perspective. TDF did nothing wrong, and there is nothing wrong with TDF. They did the best that they could with the licensing cards dealt to them. That situation has now changed, with the software grant to the ASF and resulting change in licensing. That change is essential to various parties, and while it should not be taken to reflect negatively on TDF, nor can it be ignored. The license is, as Sam said, essential. As Sam said, if TDF is willing and able to relicense, all sorts of frictionless exchange would be possible, and all sorts of divisions of labor could be contemplated. In fact, the division of labor could be dynamic in that we could experiment with all sorts of different arrangements and find out what works best. Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense all of the contributions it has received. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 June 2011 18:21, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Ian Lynch wrote: Noel J. Bergman: Sam Ruby wrote: From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License. As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to replace their original LGPL license from Oracle with the Apache License. But I have questions about their ability to relicense new contributions, based on what I read at http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and the licensing policy linked from there. It does not seem clear to me that TDF can unilaterally relicense all contributions. At least to start with they don't need to change anything. No, they don't. But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the historic opportunity to change their license to the Apache License, which makes it much easier to (quoting you, now), cooperate with ASF to make the two projects work as harmoniously as possible. At least some folks at TDF seem to feel slighted by recent developments. I understand, but they should not, at least from the ASF's perspective. TDF did nothing wrong, and there is nothing wrong with TDF. They did the best that they could with the licensing cards dealt to them. That situation has now changed, with the software grant to the ASF and resulting change in licensing. That change is essential to various parties, and while it should not be taken to reflect negatively on TDF, nor can it be ignored. The license is, as Sam said, essential. As Sam said, if TDF is willing and able to relicense, all sorts of frictionless exchange would be possible, and all sorts of divisions of labor could be contemplated. In fact, the division of labor could be dynamic in that we could experiment with all sorts of different arrangements and find out what works best. Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense all of the contributions it has received. I think that is a step further on. To start with we need TDF to feel less threatened by all this. Let's relax and work together and see what comes out of the licensing issues. Whether or not they want to change their license they are colleagues and friends first and foremost. I think we all need to respect that these decisions are for TDF to make in their own good time. In the mean time we have to first get commitment to work together on things as they stand. -- 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being transferred) for everyone's good. And as a tangible, valuable asset, the ASF cannot, as a 501(c)3 non-profit just give it away to just anyone... in general, the recipient must also be a IRS recognized non-profit, iirc. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
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
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:50, 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. Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to upgrade or modify their licensing. Apache's CLA process gives us flexibility in altering our license. It is not a copyright assignment (whew!), so we don't have total flexibility. But we have enough... :-) Plus, of course, we have IP tracking as well, which is a *considerable* consideration... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
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
Re: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
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. Robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 6/3/2011 12:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote: 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. In all fairness, in addition to a separate trademark grant, the stock example http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt form spells out the assets. From your perspective, the existing LGPL/MPL hybrid may already grant most everything you require. For IBM and others, it had not, prior to this permissive grant. That said, the definition of everyone in your statement above would mean different things to different readers, and I'll step back from the licensing discussion precipice now :) ++1 to ongoing collaboration by all OOo code consumers :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com 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. Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept the podling. These are decisions the podling should be making. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com 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. Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept the podling. These are decisions the podling should be making. Are you ready to call for a vote? :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Oh completely agreed there. A lot of this hot-air is quite premature. Geronimo was nothing other than a JBoss fork and we had no problems entertaining that resolution, I see no major concerns for OOo other than volunteer resources signed up for the task. - Original Message From: Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 2:12:03 PM Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community? On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com 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. Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept the podling. These are decisions the podling should be making. - 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
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. S. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
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: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: 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. There is nothing to explain. The licenses are (one way) compatible: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 To explain what I mean by one-way, here's a picture: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png Robert - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: 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. This email has no place on this list. Take it elsewhere. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Are you ready to call for a vote? :) I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. It would be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM folks who have not yet signed on, and any Oracle folk engaged 'if only for the time being'). If they expect to be committing, I expect their names on the original proposal. You apparently feel quite ready given the time you have spent thinking this through, but since the bomb dropped on the rest of us 6/1, it would seem appropriate to let this play out until 6/8 for a vote on the initial committer roster. About mentors, I'd strongly nominate Shane as a mentor, because I believe that the whole OpenOffice.org trademark policy alignment is going to require hand holding between our TM policy maker and the projects/consumers of that mark. Also, Sam seems to have a great deal of insight and would benefit the project to serve as both Champion and Mentor. Finally it would be good to have on member of ComDev step up to help with community issues. I wish I could volunteer myself for a mentoring task, but can't realistically find that many free cycles to do a proper job of mentoring right now. Shane Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add yourselves to the Mentor roster? http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
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, as I pointed out earlier, about 75% to 90% of the LIbreOffice contributions have been made by the employees of a handful of companies, primarily Linux distributors such as Novell, Red Hat and Canonical. So in fact, if those companies decided to join in an Apache Licensed effort, this issue would be largely addressed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:27, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: 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. There is nothing to explain. The licenses are (one way) compatible: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 To explain what I mean by one-way, here's a picture: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png I much prefer Fitz and Dan's licensing diagram: http://www.cl.ly/5nAo :-P :-P - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Are you ready to call for a vote? :) I think you need to allow a little time for people to read what has been written, absorb and reflect on it, and react appropriately. And I'm not (just) talking about ASF members--I'm talking about the potentially larger community. Rushing things will not help the community building process. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
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: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: 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... Mailing lists that end in '.apache.org' tend to attract people who prefer this license choice. Calling this choice 'ideological' doesn't further the discussion. Take it elsewhere. S. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Whoops. Forgot to copy the list. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Are you ready to call for a vote? :) No; there are some good discussions going on (as well as some distractions, which is understandable given the visibility of this project). I'd like to see the good discussions progress for at least a few more days. I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. It would be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM folks who have not yet signed on, and any Oracle folk engaged 'if only for the time being'). If they expect to be committing, I expect their names on the original proposal. You apparently feel quite ready given the time you have spent thinking this through, but since the bomb dropped on the rest of us 6/1, it would seem appropriate to let this play out until 6/8 for a vote on the initial committer roster. About mentors, I'd strongly nominate Shane as a mentor, because I believe that the whole OpenOffice.org trademark policy alignment is going to require hand holding between our TM policy maker and the projects/consumers of that mark. Also, Sam seems to have a great deal of insight and would benefit the project to serve as both Champion and Mentor. Finally it would be good to have on member of ComDev step up to help with community issues. I wish I could volunteer myself for a mentoring task, but can't realistically find that many free cycles to do a proper job of mentoring right now. Shane Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add yourselves to the Mentor roster? http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal I've added myself. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
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. This email has no place on this list. Take it elsewhere. If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes, we'll take it elsewhere and IBM can go it alone. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Cmon, being bitch-slapped is why we're *all* here. :) The fact is that I feel that having OOo here and, especially, under the AL2.0, is a Very Good Thing. No, that does not mean in any way, shape or form that I think that TDF needs to go away, is superfluous or any other sort of nonsensical stuff; there are some *obvious* ways were collaboration is possible, obvious places where both sides can learn from each other... But there are also non-obvious ones as well, ones never considered because there was never the opportunity to do so; I think it would be a real shame to not take time to dig around for what some of those might be. It's for that reason that I think such ideas as simply give it all to TDF and be done with it are short-sighted. Maybe in the long run, that might just be the best decision, but it is *way* to early to limit ourselves to that. Sun had an opportunity. They never pushed it and so it never happened. Same with Oracle. Now that OOo is (or will be or might be) an ASF project, the entire community *now has options and opportunitis* that it never had before. I don't like any scenario that from day 1 doesn't have cooperation as a top 3 goal. I also think it disingenuous to suggest that either TDF or the ASF does not agree that OOo will live, or die, based on that cooperation. On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Are you ready to call for a vote? :) I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. ... Shane Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add yourselves to the Mentor roster? http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal You need to flush your cache... ~20 committers. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
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. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote: 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. This email has no place on this list. Take it elsewhere. If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes, we'll take it elsewhere and IBM can go it alone. OK... I offer my apologies... I agree that this has gotten quite heated and gone w offbase. I admit my culpability in my actions which have allowed it and apologize. Can we *please* focus on moving ahead... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes, we'll take it elsewhere and IBM can go it alone. OK... I offer my apologies... I agree that this has gotten quite heated and gone w offbase. I admit my culpability in my actions which have allowed it and apologize. Apology accepted (on this end anyway). Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
And I offer a personal apology to Simon... On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote: 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. This email has no place on this list. Take it elsewhere. If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes, we'll take it elsewhere and IBM can go it alone. OK... I offer my apologies... I agree that this has gotten quite heated and gone w offbase. I admit my culpability in my actions which have allowed it and apologize. Can we *please* focus on moving ahead... - 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: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 June 2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org 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. Which is exactly why I say we are where we are and we should deal with it even if it is to agree to disagree on some things. Can we work together and resolve issues so that people can enjoy using FOSS office software? That is really the fundamental question. Are we committed to use the available resources within the constraints we have? If we can agree that we are a good way forward. -- 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: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: Which is exactly why I say we are where we are and we should deal with it even if it is to agree to disagree on some things. Can we work together and resolve issues so that people can enjoy using FOSS office software? That is really the fundamental question. Are we committed to use the available resources within the constraints we have? If we can agree that we are a good way forward. +1. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:30, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org 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, as I pointed out earlier, about 75% to 90% of the LIbreOffice contributions have been made by the employees of a handful of companies, primarily Linux distributors such as Novell, Red Hat and Canonical. So in fact, if those companies decided to join in an Apache Licensed effort, this issue would be largely addressed. That is actually quite an interesting point. If the work contributed to the TDF was done under work for hire rules, then those companies could contribute the same work to the ASF with a simple Software Grant stating something like all commits to the TDF performed by $PERSON between $START and $END. There are certainly issues between the employee/employer on whether that is even possible (eg. in some jurisdictions, employees own the work they did at home, on their own hardware). ... could be messy, but some contributions may be possible. And yes, I *do* recognize that the employees might be quite upset at their employer in some cases. Not trying to diminish the personal vs corporate aspects here. But a great thought... Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 6/3/2011 1:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Are you ready to call for a vote? :) I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. You need to flush your cache... ~20 committers. You miss my meta-point, which was that those are the 18 individuals who just happened to catch the buzz and get rerouted and determine that they belong on that list within the past 52 hours. Giving this a week to play out at general@, and for people from all of the constituencies who might not be familiar with the ASF to become familiar with what exactly is going on seems entirely appropriate. Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already. Your invitation to start the vote NOW comes across as a snarky drivers seat remark. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote: Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already. Your invitation to start the vote NOW comes across as a snarky drivers seat remark. Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and even more likely that Jim wants to roll up his sleeves and get started), and furthermore, I have already publicly declined the suggestion that we do a vote now. I hope we don't need to deliberate for a full month, but I do agree that we should wait until some of the more active threads become dormant. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:22, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote: Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already. Your invitation to start the vote NOW comes across as a snarky drivers seat remark. Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and Likewise. I read it with tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek. That's what the smiley was there for. aka JOKE even more likely that Jim wants to roll up his sleeves and get started), and furthermore, I have already publicly declined the suggestion that we do a vote now. I hope we don't need to deliberate for a full month, but I do agree that we should wait until some of the more active threads become dormant. Right. Maybe late next week at the earliest, and (IMO) no later than two weeks. I suspect that anything after the first week would be details best left for the podling. Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com 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. Are you ready to call for a vote? :) Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :) I recognize that all important smiley (note I'm adding smileys too!! (^_^) ), but let's pretend I'm ignoring that, in which case for me the actual answer is something like... * The, err, awkward language in the proposal that was pointed out [1] should be fixed first. * Arguably you need _at least_ 3 mentors first. * There is a ton of information/opinions/plans/background on blogs/twitter/press releases/etc (for example from IBM folks like Rob) that is not quite reflected yet in the proposal, which should change: the proposal should be complete so that you can read it from start to end, have a good idea about everything going on, and cast a vote. * There is a ton of stuff at OpenOffice.org (infrastructure, docs, ...) for which it is unclear what ASF its relation is going to be to it, the proposal is not quite reflecting the reality of what OOo is yet. * You reached out to a bunch of organisations and existing communities and asked them to provide feedback and/or sign up as committers, and we have mostly not seen the response yet. I'm sure many people are still trying to get to grips with what is happening. * There are some conversations going on that seem a bit heated now but also seem pretty resolvable. It seems a good idea to get rid of most of that heat before voting on the next step. * In general I see a couple of very excited people generating a lot of e-mail traffic which means a not so great signal-to-noise ratio (which is normal and fine and such, this is _huge_ for a lot of people :-) ), making it very hard for people that have to vote on a proposal to get a clear hold of the signal. Making having a very clear and complete proposal (perhaps even with FAQ) even more important. (...) I'm not much of a process junkie, but I think the whole idea of OOo coming here also includes following normal apache due diligence processes, which tends to involve slowing things down a bit when they get heated up. I personally completely fail to get excited about office applications (but welcome on board guys! Good luck! :-) ) but you're pretty obviously not done with some of the basics yet. The responsible vote AFAICS right now would be something like -1, seems like a good idea, but the proposal is not finished, so please fix it. cheers! Leo [1] Oracle and ASF agree [broad statement]... IBM as Sponsor ... etc - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes, we'll take it elsewhere Fair comment. Please everyone, thus us the first experience many people are having of the ASF. We (guests and ASF people) are better than this. (and I want to turn my phone off and go camping) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Re someone from ComDev... I'm seriously considering whether to sign up or not. I am ready to vote but not sure I'm ready to mentor (it's a time commitment thing). Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:30, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Are you ready to call for a vote? :) I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. It would be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM folks who have not yet signed on, and any Oracle folk engaged 'if only for the time being'). If they expect to be committing, I expect their names on the original proposal. You apparently feel quite ready given the time you have spent thinking this through, but since the bomb dropped on the rest of us 6/1, it would seem appropriate to let this play out until 6/8 for a vote on the initial committer roster. About mentors, I'd strongly nominate Shane as a mentor, because I believe that the whole OpenOffice.org trademark policy alignment is going to require hand holding between our TM policy maker and the projects/consumers of that mark. Also, Sam seems to have a great deal of insight and would benefit the project to serve as both Champion and Mentor. Finally it would be good to have on member of ComDev step up to help with community issues. I wish I could volunteer myself for a mentoring task, but can't realistically find that many free cycles to do a proper job of mentoring right now. Shane Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add yourselves to the Mentor roster? http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal - 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: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
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. One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge* and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience. I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge* and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience. I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to. This is a concise capture of a critical point. TDF could decide to ignore us. They are honorable and committed copylefters. They've worked hard since the fork. They have some momentum. From their point of view, the arrival of this situation could, perhaps, look primarily like downside. Or, they could decide that the opportunity to harness the efforts of some number of honorable and committed non-copylefters is an opportunity not to be missed. It is very much up to them. We can be nice to them and even send a box of asparagus (they are primarily German). They could split the difference and choose to stand off for a month or six and see whether the podling flourishes or flounders. If TDF chooses to stand off, it will require heroic efforts to maintain any sort of consumer continuity on the Apache side. A more modest ambition would be to focus the podling on cleaning up and hardening the build, test, and internal doc of the core code. Success might lead to TDF adoption of that core. Or, what do I know? IBM has, at times, had a vast number of people working on Eclipse. Maybe we're going to need a special donation from them to hire 3 infra contractors to respond to all the root@ requests for accounts. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
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. 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... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
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: opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:29:23PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: 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. Agreed... after all, we have some people around here that are involved in the open source community and have some understanding of what's important there :-P Cheers! -- === 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Danese Cooper dan...@gmail.com wrote: I've just finished speaking to Greg Stein, and I'm also newly time-available to help. I'd be willing to mentor, and Greg thought I could be of help. An offer too good to pass up on. I've added you before you change your mind! Danese - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Hi All,
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com 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.
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first
arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :)
I recognize that all important smiley (note I'm adding smileys too!!
(^_^) ), but let's pretend I'm ignoring that, in which case for me the
actual answer is something like...
[...snip...]
*IPMC member hat on here *
The snipped seems like a pretty nice list of things to resolve *before*
graduation.
I personally don't think any of those are a blocker for calling a VOTE, next
week that is.
Some of these types of discussions going on right now could be happening on
office-{dev|user}@incubator.apache.org.
Cheers,
Chris
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 19:57) Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to upgrade or modify their licensing. Read the '+' in the licence ;-) Cor (still reading my way through, and understanding in the mean time that at any moment constructive contribution is expected ;-) ) -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Sam Ruby wrote (03-06-11 20:22) 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. Ah yes, and part of them would not object, I guess. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Hi Rob, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (03-06-11 17:59) Allen Pulsiferpulsi...@openoffice.org wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03 AM: It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document Foundation is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF. Without commenting on the merit of the idea, a practical difficulty is that [...] Maybe you did comment on the merit of it in another post ? If not, pls.. Cor -- - http://nl.libreoffice.org - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything. You are free to disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say, No thanks without suggesting that it is immoral for anyone else, including your own members, to say Yes please. Let's not argue for freedom by denying it to others. Just a reminder: that anyone's particular goals, priorities or methods are moot: What is important is the *project's* goals, priorities and methods, and they are not determined by *any* external 3rd party. Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This is about working together. This is about building a developer and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip. If people do not understand that, they need to. And if they can't agree with that then, quite frankly, they have no business being here. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I'd like to challenge your assertion here, about splitting the community, a nonsensical meme I'm hearing repeated in several venues. Hi Rob - well, are you happier then with perpetuating the split? As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed opportunity to reunite. It'll bind considerable resources to bootstrap a new community here - resources that are better spent enhancing the code marketing OOo and ODF, if you ask me ... Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpRtj0bOl6pi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed opportunity to reunite. If we all agree on that point, can we please move on? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed opportunity to reunite. If we all agree on that point, can we please move on? Seems to me the main issue is the license. Permissive Apache or Copyleft. Those who want to be associated with permissive licensed code will come to Apache, those that want a copyleft license will go to TDF. Those that don't care will contribute to both or work with the community they like the best :-). Since it seems unlikely that those that feel strongly about it will be moved, the crux is whether either, both or neither code base gets sufficient support to sustain its maintenance and development. Only time will tell and only time will tell to what extent the code will diverge if both projects prove viable. So what further debate is to be had? Is it not just a matter of seeing how many committers sign up to make Apache OOo viable? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Hi, On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed opportunity to reunite. If we all agree on that point, can we please move on? 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. BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything. You are free to disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say, No thanks without suggesting that it is immoral for anyone else, including your own members, to say Yes please. Let's not argue for freedom by denying it to others. Just a reminder: that anyone's particular goals, priorities or methods are moot: What is important is the *project's* goals, priorities and methods, and they are not determined by *any* external 3rd party. Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This is about working together. This is about building a developer and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip. If people do not understand that, they need to. And if they can't agree with that then, quite frankly, they have no business being here. The information presented so far remind me of a bad open-source advocate that creates a web forum in 60 minutes with lots of sections and subsections, and invites everyone to come in and contribute, on an empty forum. The result is that the forum remains empty. OpenOffice is huge, and you need a community to support your efforts. Without the LibreOffice community, you need to build your own. And till now, I see no efforts to build a new community. I see no inspiration either to get people to contribute to Apache OpenOffice. There should be a single project, with a copyleft license, that everyone joins and contributes. OpenOffice is as big, complex and important as the Linux kernel. GPL worked great to keep the Linux kernel going. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed opportunity to reunite. If we all agree on that point, can we please move on? Seems to me the main issue is the license. Permissive Apache or Copyleft. Those who want to be associated with permissive licensed code will come to Apache, those that want a copyleft license will go to TDF. Those that don't care will contribute to both or work with the community they like the best :-). Since it seems unlikely that those that feel strongly about it will be moved, the crux is whether either, both or neither code base gets sufficient support to sustain its maintenance and development. Only time will tell and only time will tell to what extent the code will diverge if both projects prove viable. So what further debate is to be had? Is it not just a matter of seeing how many committers sign up to make Apache OOo viable? My impression is that TDF likes having the OOo codebase as AL2 since they can consume it directly. Of course, the reverse is not possible, but that is the advantage of an AL type license: after all, having the code under the AL helps the developer community as well as commercial entities. If the intent is having OOo as pervasive as possible, then it's obvious that AL wins big time. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed opportunity to reunite. If we all agree on that point, can we please move on? I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the related communities. ??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my comment... huh? If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that explained in the proposal before we vote on it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 2 June 2011 17:18, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed opportunity to reunite. If we all agree on that point, can we please move on? Seems to me the main issue is the license. Permissive Apache or Copyleft. Those who want to be associated with permissive licensed code will come to Apache, those that want a copyleft license will go to TDF. Those that don't care will contribute to both or work with the community they like the best :-). Since it seems unlikely that those that feel strongly about it will be moved, the crux is whether either, both or neither code base gets sufficient support to sustain its maintenance and development. Only time will tell and only time will tell to what extent the code will diverge if both projects prove viable. So what further debate is to be had? Is it not just a matter of seeing how many committers sign up to make Apache OOo viable? My impression is that TDF likes having the OOo codebase as AL2 since they can consume it directly. Of course, the reverse is not possible, but that is the advantage of an AL type license: after all, having the code under the AL helps the developer community as well as commercial entities. If the intent is having OOo as pervasive as possible, then it's obvious that AL wins big time. I'd expect you to advocate an AL :-) My real point is that irrespective of the merits of each license, it is this difference that is the main objective reason that two forks would be sustained. Maybe I'm missing something else but I can't see what that would be - apart from personal ownership and sense of belonging which is probably at is highest now but will likely decline over time. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- 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: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Hi, On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: ??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my comment... huh? Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was: this was a missed opportunity to reunite - agree on that point - move on This seems like a pretty hasty conclusion just one day after Oracle announced its plan to give away control over OO.org. Did you mean something else? BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: ??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my comment... huh? Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was: this was a missed opportunity to reunite - agree on that point - move on This seems like a pretty hasty conclusion just one day after Oracle announced its plan to give away control over OO.org. All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage of the current opportunities that are now open to us, then we need to adjust priorities a bit. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage of the current opportunities that are now open to us, then we need to adjust priorities a bit +1
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
Hi, On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage of the current opportunities that are now open to us, then we need to adjust priorities a bit. Very much agreed. Let's strike out the missed' and keep the opportunity! :-) BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
opportunity to reunite the related communities Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
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) Cheers, Andreas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
