thanks for bringing up those points.
On 24/06/2022 11:49, Simon Phipps wrote:
Why is this better than working with the version Collabora (who
actually contribute to TDF's work) maintain?
I believe that Collabora has been explicitly asked a few time if they
were available to contribute back to LOOL but we never received any
answer or signs of goodwill.
OSSII has been working on a fork of LOOL for quite a while and is kindly
offering to share it back for the community to enjoy it.
They also offer a commercial version so it will be important to set
clear rules to avoid the conflicts we have seen in the past.
Why should TDF hire developers to maintain code for the Taiwanese
IMHO, unless we are talking about quick fixes, in-house developers
should not focus on LOOL.
However there could be opportunities to develop synergies with OSSII and
the Taiwanese community on CJK issues as together with RTL bug fixes
will enable a couple of billion people to use LibreOffice properly in
their own languages.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 5:47 AM Franklin Weng
Here I have a proposal: to have LOOL respository sync to another
OxOOL is developed by OSSII in Taiwan, derived from LOOL. It has
commercial version, which is several versions advanced to
community version, while the community version is also open
sourced. Currently National Development Council Taiwan, the main
dominant unit of ODF policy in Taiwanese government, uses (forks)
this community version into "NDCODFweb":
which is also mainly supported by OSSII.
Besides NDCODFWeb and some other Taiwanese government units, OxOOL
is also used in different companies and products. For example, it
is integrated into ASUS cloud Omnistor Office
(https://www.asuscloud.com/omnistor-office/), OpenFind SecuShare
Pro (https://www.openfind.com.tw/taiwan/secusharepro.html). It is
migrated into Pou Chen Group (https://www.pouchen.com) and some
other big anonymous companies. Also, it is deployed in UNAU
OxOOL v4 will be released in a month and can be a good and useful
base to LOOL, also good to the LibreOffice community.
I'm not a representative of OSSII, but the GM of OSSII told me
that they are happy to share the community version.
In this proposal there are two ways to relive LOOL:
1. To sync current LOOL with patches from OxOOL community v4,
which may technically take more time and efforts.
2. Start a new repository from OxOOL community v4, which I'll say
that it is actually a "fast forward" from current status since
OxOOL is also derived from LOOL, though a bit far before. It will
be technically easier than 1., just that maybe some community
people may feel uneasy or unhappy with this way.
Both ways are okay for me, as long as LOOL can be relived.
However no matter which way, IMO TDF needs to employ in-house
developers (independent from *any* ecosystem member) for rerunning
LOOL. The second option, which is my prefer option, is a lot
easier technically and in-house developers would just need to
(cowork with community members and OSSII to) maintain LOOL
Features in OxOOL commercial version are mostly (customized)
requests from customers and hence may not necessarily need to be
backported (to community version), but the GM of OSSII also
promised that OxOOL Commercial version functions (which they think
good / necessary to be back ported) and bugfixes will be back
ported to LOOL (and OxOOL community version too).
Of course, after reliving LOOL all developers are welcomed to
contribute to LOOL.
Details can be discussed with OSSII.
Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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