incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2011 04:22:31 GMT
On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get 
> such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following 
> questions.  This would help us understand what room there is for 
> negotiation and what is not worth discussing at all.

As the VP, HTTP Server Project, let me suggest how the ASF would answer
your questions, and possibly lead you to rephrase many of your questions.

Across the board, I would tell you that as the chair of an ASF project
I do not speak for the individuals at my project, and such corporate-
speak questions are counterproductive and indicate a disconnect, still,
with ASF (annd TDF) style meritocracy and a collation of the willing,
e.g. individual developers.

Reversing roles and names below...

> 1) Require Apache 2.0 licence for future contributions to LO, possibly in 
> addition with other compatible licenses.
> 
> a) Not willing to consider it
> 
> b) Willing to consider it

A. a) the ASF publishes only AL code.  It consumes code in many compatible
      licenses and will not combine code with incompatible licenses.

I'm guessing that's also the TDF answer, that their finished product would
be LGPL as it was before.  That doesn't mean they couldn't frame the CLA
for upstream bug fixes to comply with the respective upstream licensing, but
even here at the ASF, we simply point contributors to send their bugfix
upstream.  Our shallow forks reflect minimal changes that aren't yet
accepted by upstream works.

And I don't think OOo + Gnome/KDE/other GPL Desktops has a lot of reasons
to become AL.  TDF has a pretty specific niche that is a superset of OOo,
and not every element of TDF/LO needs be permissively licensed.

> 2) Encourage and facilitate TDF members signing an Apache CLA on their 
> past LO contributions
> 
> a) Not willing to consider it
> 
> b) Willing to consider it

A. a) as the organization would not do this, and I would encourage the
      requestor to send their request to the project list.  For example,
      if there was a patch to zlib posted on the httpd list that fixed
      a mod_deflate bug, and zlib required a CLA, someone should point
      that out to the contributor.  But that wouldn't be an "ASF" action.

Since ASF posts seem to have been met warmly, I'd suggest that request
is already 'in progress', with the question posted by ASF representatives
if this should come to pass.  I don't see this as an "official TDF act"
but rather soliciting individuals to come contribute to either or both
projects as their interests take them.

> 3) Encourage and facilitate TDF members contributing their work to both 
> Apache and TDF under respective licenses
> 
> a) Not willing to consider it
> 
> b) Willing to consider it

A. a) that it isn't an organizational issue, but an issue for individual
      contributors as mentioned above.  The "ASF" does no such thing.

You seem to be asking for a poll, not an "official statement".

> 4) Join Apache and do the core development work there, with LibreOffice 
> being a downstream consumer of the core, collaborating closely with Apache 
> via patches, defect reports, etc.
> 
> a) Not willing to consider it
> 
> b) Willing to consider it

A. a) that it isn't an organizational issue, but an issue for individual
      contributors as mentioned above.  The "ASF" does no such thing.

You seem to be asking for a poll, not an "official statement".

> 5) Join Apache and consolidate all development there,  under the name 
> OpenOffice
> 
> a) Not willing to consider it
> 
> b) Willing to consider it

A. a) Not as an organization.  It's the choice of individual contributors
      where they each contribute.  ASF works have been forked, and forks
      sometimes come home.  The ASF has never endorsed a fork.

Would expect the same answer from TDF.  Not as an 'official' thing, and
I doubt the ASF best serves all purposes of TDF.

If "all development" meant all core OOo code, while the TDF continued to
roll a Gnome/KDE flavored package, and even OS/X or Win32 packages, you
might get a different answer, but your questions seem more divisive than
collaborative.

> 6) Join Apache and consolidate all development there,  under the name 
> LibreOffice.
> 
> a) Not willing to consider it
> 
> b) Willing to consider it

A. a) Not as an organization.  It's the choice of individual contributors
      where to contribute.

Sounds absurd on the face of it to the TDF/LO community, as the ASF does
not ship Free/Libre software as I understand the definition.

> 7) Join Apache and consolidate all development there,  under the name ODF 
> Suite.
> 
> a) Not willing to consider it
> 
> b) Willing to consider it

A. a) Not as an organization.  It's the choice of individual contributors
      where to contribute.

After you asked the last couple of questions, this one probably falls on
deaf ears.

I would humbly suggest your poll reads as a very argumentative, legalistic
survey of the wrong landscape ("the TDF" vs TDF contributors), and seemed
destined to provide debate and argument.

I don't think that's what anyone wants at this stage.




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message