-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is
incorporated in Germany, not the United States.
More pointedly, the barriers to forming the equivalent to a 501(c)(3)
organization in Germany are somewhat higher than in the United States.
why is it directed to the ASF which never sought this donation,
The honourable, ethical, and moral thing for the Apache Software
Foundation would have been to tell Oracle that if it wants to donate the
code, it needs to discuss doing so with the OOo community _before_ the fact.
and from the get-go has tried to pull in the LOo organization?
Very simple, Tell Oracle that The Apache Foudnation is the wrong place,
and that you don't appreciate being bullied by IBM. Then tell Oracle
that it needs to donate the code to _The Document Foundation_.
which describes how this is done, and has been done, quite successfully,
for loads of projects.
None of which are for end users that wouldn't know the difference
between a "repeat ... until" loop, and a while loop.
We are users and developers. Anyone with even a rudimentary awareness
Your current "users" are people in IT. Not Joe Sixpack that wouldn't
know the difference between a C# wrapper for Java, and something they
drank watching a football game.
been quite upfront in saying that this is an area where TDF has
some clear areas to provide insight/help/guidance, etc...
First, _The Apache Foundation_ needs to decide what they want to do with
If it really intends to create a program "Apache OpenOffice.org" that
joe sixpack can run on its desktop, then the Apache Foundation has to
throw away its current modus operandi, and learn how to deliver
pre-compiled binaries on ten different operating systems, running on
roughly twenty different chips.
does not constitute delivering a pre-compiled binary.
That works for Apache, because people that setup Apache usually know
basic coding principles. (Indeed, The Apache Foundation prides itself on
not delivering pre-compiled binaries.)
No, the essential need is that Oracle wanted someplace with a
proven track record to donate the code to so they could then
The Mozilla Foundation would have been a better fit --- except for the
little item that IBM can't grab the code, and incorporate it in their
closed source, proprietary software. And that last point is the _ONLY_
reason why The Apache Foundation is being dumped with it. And both
Oracle and IBM have made The Apache Foundation the patsy.
The essential need to the community is an open, well-established entity that is (hopefully) able
to help the
entire community to cooperate and collaborate on such an important piece
of FOSS code as OOo.
The last count I had, was 110 localizations of OOo. Roughly thirty five
were from Sun/Oracle. The rest from the community. A community that
didn't always work with Sun/Oracle.
Can Apache provide the infrastructure for that? (If The Apache
Foundation is relying on what Oracle provides, then the answer is "NO".)
That is just one trivial, simple thing, Even before one gets into
cultural differences. (Do you know why it is an insult to praise the
vietnamese developers, but not the american developers?)
How about the OOo education project, with two official forks of OOo
(OOOLight, and OOo4Kids), and one or two other unofficial forks?
Or the Japanese Macro? When standard code is simply not good enough.
Then there is the more obscure. Code from Korea, or for Korean needs to
go through legal, before it can be accepted. Do you understand why LibO
does not need that same legal review? Do you know which countries,
languages, and locales require that legal review?
Even FSF admits that when there are competing "standards", a AL license
is the best choice, even compared to a copyleft one.
FSF is referring to the glue there. Not the delivered product that is
found on Joe Sixpack's desktop.
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.
If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.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
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