incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <>
Subject Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:56:19 GMT
On 6/5/11 7:38 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 6/5/11 6:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. 
>> Hall<>  wrote:
>>> On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
>>>> <>    wrote:
>>>>> IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
>>>>> license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
>>>>> to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos
>>>>> interests is worth splitting the FOSS community.
>>>>> I am considering voting -1 to this proposal for those reasons.
>>>> Thanks for expressing my feelings so well, Niall!
>>> I'll lend a voice to the contrary.
>>> I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to 
>>> the
>>> incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying to 
>>> pull away
>>> developers from another community doing similar stuff. That's the 
>>> nature of
>>> the beast.
>> True, but when its essentially the same software, rather than
>> different software solving the same problem? If I proposed a new
>> project that was a fork of the HTTP project, how would that go down?
> Of course they software is essentially the same because LO is a fork 
> of what is being granted. If I wanted to experiment with an HTTP 
> project that was going to go in a different direction and attract a 
> different community from Apache HTTP Server, I assume I would be able 
> to, even if I started as fork from the current HTTP Server code.
> I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and 
> then try to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers 
> have a vision for where they want to go, even though they may be 
> starting from the same place.
> Seems this is what the incubator is for, finding out if their vision 
> hold water.
>>> For me, getting the OOo code fully available under AL is reason 
>>> enough to +1
>>> it as far as I'm concerned...if I were on the IPMC... :-)
>> License is important, but thats not all the ASF is about. Community is
>> important too. I respect you're right to vote however you wish but if
>> all its down to is license then I'm not sure.

One other point to make, I said for me it is basically sufficient to +1 
this proposal just to get all of the OOo code under AL. One reason why I 
see this as adding significant value is because it opens up a 
possibility (I won't say "freedom", since this is far too noble of a 
term for the crap we are talking about) to modify and use the code in 
proprietary products that wouldn't otherwise exist if only LO existed. 
Again, this last issue is just my opinion, not out of any religion, but 
for the possibilities that may arise because of it...who knows, maybe 
one day I might come up with an idea that could use some of the code... 
;-) It's always nice to have options.

-> richard

>> Niall
>>> ->  richard
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message