Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 4 June 2011 16:47, Zaphod Feeblejocks <zaphodfj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go
> to
> Apache and say "Please let us have that?"

It's a good question. I suspect not now - OOo is not yet even accepted into
the incubator at Apache. Depends on what Oracle lawyers built into any
conditions. It could be possible later down the line but I doubt it would be
very sensible for someone at Apache to broadcast that intention in earshot
of oracle ;-)

Oracle are code-dumping because the community left them standing alone.
> Oracle are acting as generous benefactors but may end up splitting the OS
> community over this one.  We do not need two near-identical office suites.
> The duplication in effort is not worth it.

That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those
with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code
don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself. It
seems inevitable that there will be a copyleft product overseen by TDF and
an ASF licensed product. Question is whether we can cooperate effectively
enough to keep the code mostly common. Honest answer is I'm not sure but I
don't see any alternative.

The option of LibO becoming a customised build of Apache OO, where we take
> from them and add our own things becomes a maintenance nightmare.  LibO 3.4
> already has enough clear differences from OOo 3.4 that make the idea of
> moving code modules back and forth difficult.  There will be a lot of
> re-engineering simply to keep things working and much potential to
> introduce
> bugs.

So life is complicated ;-)

> > From a marketing point of view, the appearance of yet another OpenOffice
> is
> not helpful.  We now have OpenOffice.org, Star Office, Oracle Open Office,
> BrOffice, Go-oo, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Symphony, NeoOffice, Euro Office
> and, of course, LibreOffice.


Some would say that was a benefit of open source - at least they all are
100% odf compliant.


>  At least when everything else was a build of
> OOo with some addons, it could be understood.  When TDF was set up, it was
> a
> case of everything else being a build of LibO with addons, plus
> OpenOffice.org - and we hoped either Oracle would code-dump in our
> direction, or just go away.
>
> When TDF was set up, there was an invitation to Oracle to take part.  They
> declined.  This invitation should be passed on to Apache.  They don't need
> the hassle of maintaining a parallel project - especially one that the
> wider
> community has dropped.

I suppose that it might be possible to persuade Apache to just allow the
code to die and carry on from the LO code base - probably that loses IBM
(some will say that is a good thing) - but I can't really see that happening
in the short term because IBM and others will support that code and Apache
has no remit to deny one project over another.

> ZF
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted


-- 
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.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted