----- Original Message ----
From: Keith Curtis <email@example.com>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> The overlap between TDF & ASF's goals for an office product
enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.
I disagree... competition implies a "winner" and a "loser"...
in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market Share? Feh. When
you start looking at it that way, then what makes FOSS FOSS
kinda gets overlooked.
The intent of FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide
freedom and choices to end-users. If having 2 "competing" implementations
means that a larger set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms
and choices than if there was only 1 implementation, then the
"competition" is most valid.
It's being complementary, not competitive.
I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are
bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that
doesn't make them ideal.
And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have been a
necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
This is not like KOffice because that codebase is so different and missing
lots of features. No one is arguing to get rid of KOffice here, or that a
merge would be possible or makes sense.This is only about very slightly
different versions of a 10M line codebase.
No it is not. But KOffice does provide a very good example of this.
KOffice recently had a fork - Calligra - that most all of the development team
moved to as the KOffice proper was not being properly managed. Very similar to
to the OOo vs TDF/LO situation.
Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a much
healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with each
Another way to think about it: what features does Apache want that
LibreOffice does *not* want? Ubuntu forked Debian because they wanted
6-month release cycles, proprietary drivers, etc. I see no list. Even if you
had a list of features LibreOffice didn't want, you could include the code
in LibreOffice and turn it off by default. OpenOffice could be LibreOffice
with different defaults. I don't think there is anything like that either.
The real question is - since TDF/LO is the real fork, what does LibreOffice want
that Oracle did not, and that Apache does not?
And that is primarily the LGPL+MPL.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice · Friedrich Strohmaier
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice · Augustine Souza
- Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice (continued)
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