Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2022 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Thorsten,

see below.

On 10/01/2022 12:46, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Paolo,

let's stay focused -

Paolo Vecchi wrote:
   Do you have concrete suggestions on changing the actual
Well, yes. That's what the rest of the email you replied to was about.

Can I see the adjustments/changes to the proposal then please?

The proposal, as stated in my previous emails, is related to the eventual "de-atticisation" of the project.

I'm not even suggesting that each individual proposing a project should sign
it, only when the project is being proposed by or it becomes controlled
mostly by a single company.

That then seems entirely unrelated to a putative attic process?

It is if we want to move a project like LOOL, of in future other projects, from the "attic" into a TDF hosted and promoted project as we should have in place checks that avoid the repeat of the LOOL issue.

The original proposal with "three different developers ...ideally not all of them affiliated to the same entity" does not fully exclude that the proposal could come from an organisation, which in principle would be fine for me, but in this situation the proposed agreement should be in place before welcoming the project back.

Another example could be LOWA (LibreOffice WebAssembly), which is a
promising project developed mostly by Allotropia AFAIK.

That's why months ago I've asked you to lead by example by officially
present the project to TDF in a couple of pages stating the objectives and
what TDF could expect to deliver to the community while Allotropia pursues,
rightly, its commercial interests. If you followed up we would have had
already a document on which to base the agreement we need to welcome other

Let's discuss that else-thread please. Again, new projects are a
different area entirely. And as one of the people funding LOWA, I find
it irritating that my contributions are met with demands, instead of
I'm not really sure why you feel irritated.

Of course your company's contributions are more than welcome and, as written quite a few times, TDF should facilitate and, if seen as beneficial by the corporate contributor, help in supporting and promoting the project.

The proposal was meant to ask if your project would benefit from being supported by TDF and in which ways.

It is important to set the right expectations for the community to avoid the repeat of the issues we had with LOOL once LOWA is production and market ready. That's why I believe that the proposal for both the "de-atticisation" process and new projects are linked to the same need to have an agreement in place if the main player is a company.

As both a company director and a member of TDF's board I'm sure you have a clear understanding of the need from one side to protect your investments and on the other side to do what is best for TDF and the LibreOffice community.

Having articles stating "The LibreOffice team has been working on a port to browser-hosted WebAssembly"(1) or the page you created on TDF's wiki describing the WASM project(2) without specifying who leads it and what could be the eventual distribution limitations, may suggest to some that the project is hosted and developed by/for TDF, that's the reading some may have of the "LibreOffice team/developers/other variants", and that will be bound to TDF's objective to make it "available for use by anyone free of charge".

If TDF's objectives are not fully compatible with your company's plan for the LibreOffice based project that is leading, then it would great to work on the proposed document that will be eventually used for LOOL's "de-atticisation" process if the interested party is a company and by your own company to set clear expectations for the community and to protect your investments.

I've not yet asked TDF anything in return.
Once again I express my sincere gratitude for the contributions you personally and your company provided to the LibreOffice project and community.

There are other companies that develop LibreOffice based products which never asked for anything in return, which in some cases may have chosen to use their own brands and host projects in their own infrastructures and I don't see a issue with that even if it would be nice to work all together under clear rules.

Please do evaluate the above if you think TDF could contribute in making your LibreOffice based project suitable for use under TDF's objectives and a great success for your company.


-- Thorsten


NOTE: the link leading to build instructions on TDF's wiki page comes up with a "Secure Connection Failed"

Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.