Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Christian, All,

At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi Allen, *,

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer <> 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

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 (!))

I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was at least one
IBM employee on this list...).
The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not the
"code dump" for 1.1.5 but a contribution to 3.1
(if I remember correctly).
See my comment at
(Note: 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2
was released in December 2006

At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of
the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in 3.4.

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe

> 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.



Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project
Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent 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.