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

Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies.

Laurence

On 05/06/2011, at 8:41, Christian Lohmaier
<lohmaier+libreoffice@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi Allen, *,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer <pulsifer@openoffice.org> wrote:
> > [...]
> > I don't know what vision IBM has for the project.  I don't know what code
> > contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I
> > don't know what they will be.  I don't know what contributions members of
> > the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make.
>
> Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press
> releases, that was ended up in OOo was  basically nonexistent. As
> you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can
> probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before
> switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip
> service.
>
> The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
> contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
> Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
> he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
> needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
> it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
> branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support
>
> > I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation for us to get
> > involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
> > project.
>
> Not really, as you first have to "surrender" to the Apache's licence
> terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort.
>
> >  We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum
> > benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM.
> > Basically, we can get IBM working for us.
>
> I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive
> licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing?
> They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working
> on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to
> ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the
> abovementioned accessibility dump.
>
> But before you say: It's not only IBM in the foundation. Then let me
> ask: Who else is? Oracle is gone for good. The few  individual
> contributers that have enlisted themselves as initial contributers on
> the apache wiki are to a big extent non-coder. (Not to say that the
> non-code contributors are not important, that's far from being my
> point)
> I currently find 5 people in that list of whom I'd say the have /some/
> idea of the code. And two of those already have a focus on a
> side-project/fork of OOo.
>
> So if you ask me who is on the Apache project who is not engaged in
> TDF/LO, then the only answer is: IBM.
> (But I'm also well aware that the proposal is new, and there might be
> more to come, and I'm also aware that to the apache-voting the big
> picture doesn't matter, they don't care whether it is considered a
> good idea or not. If there are enough people to run the podling and if
> IBM can convince them that it is possible to get rid of all the
> thirdparty stuff that doesn't comply with the strict licencing terms,
> they will approve it as an incubator project)
>
> And I don't really see a point in shifting this perception "now that
> nobody cares who enlists".
> IMHO you only should enlist yourself if you're really convinced that
> the Apache Foundation along with its restrictions/limitations and
> rules, esp. regarding licencing are a good idea, when you actually
> support the move.
>
> If you do, then go ahead and add yourself, I won't question your decision.
>
> The only "reason" on why the TDF should contribute is to why neooffice
> did "join" go-oo at the time: To make grabbing their code easier. But
> that is a very, very weak reason in my opinion.
>
> > So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as
> > possible.  If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating
> > the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can.
>
> What is the point? If it is run by LO people, what is the benefit of
> creating another entity instead of letting OOo be what it is (or
> better was), and instead focusing only on LibreOffice?
>
> ciao
> Christian
>
> --
> 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

-- 
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