Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hello Gianluca,

Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:05:50 +0200,
"Gianluca Turconi" <> a écrit :

In data 19 ottobre 2010 alle ore 14:34:33, Charles-H. Schulz
<> ha scritto:

I can understand why you want to make that distinction. My own
interpretation, aside the fact that we stated at the beginning what
we hear by "member", is that how we define the membership applies to
anyone, but it is based on its role and contribution. An individual
should be able to contribute and be recognized as a member. As
such, no corporation, who might also be a member, shall be
recognized as having a higher footing; contributions are what
matters only. Perhaps I did misunderstand you there, but there is
of course another kind of community, which is often referred as "an
user community".

Yes, it's likely you misunderstood me. :)

I didn't mean the "user community", but the dev community itself.

However, I think there's another important misunderstanding about what
*you* (Charles and Andre and maybe others) think a Foundation is and
what *I* think it is.

According to me, a Foundation is a central, independent legal entity
that takes decisions about a productivity suite called LibreOffice
(BTW, who owns the trademark?): how to protect its code base (without
copyright assignment), how to further develop it, how to improve the
open source ecosystem around its development.

That kind of things cannot be done without a formal and well defined
membership application.

Contribution cannot be enough for a member's application acceptance,
because in my conception of Foundation, there are actual principles
that are not limited to "contribution".

And they cannot be tested in the books ("I swear to respect the
Foundation's Charter") but they must be clear in the facts ("I'm a
well respected member of the community and I've always acted in good
faith in the past").

I mean: this time, after what happened with Sun/Oracle, we need to
cancel any "gray zone" and keep in mind that ***Free Software***
comes first.

A larger members' base is useless for a Foundation if those "gray
zones" are kept.

So, if I understand you well, you do indeed raise a good question, but
one which, to me, adds more gray zones. Let me rephrase how I
understand your position: you are afraid that we're mixing the
membership of the Foundation and the membership of the community, and
that by mixing the two we would be putting the foundation itself (the
legal object, the kernel as you called it) in jeopardy . Basically,
every contributor could come around and harm the foundation. (Did I get
this right?)

If that's what you implied, I... sort of don't agree with you but at
the same time see wisdom in your objection. We would need protect
certain parts of the foundation from direct, daily interference.
However, where I don't agree with you is that we should, provided a
majority of contributors do agree, be in charge of our own destiny. 

This being said, I believe it's necessary to focus on the question of
the membership, and separate it from the question of the foundation
structure and its governance. Obviously, these questions are all
related, but if we handle more specific ones, we'll be able to generate
some valuable input I think.


Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

E-mail to for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.