incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2011 01:09:00 GMT
If IBM "pulls a harmony", TDF can just use the Apache licensed code that's available and run
with it. Here the problem
currently is how to make things work if/when the podling gets accepted and folks start contributing,
stick around for a
long time with lots of good contributions from multiple sources.

http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06529.html

-- dims

On 06/05/2011 08:32 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Attempting to guess IBM strategy around this ...
> 
> IMO the reason this whole thing is happening is because with TDF there no
> longer was a place that downstream proprietary aggregators of OO like IBM
> could use to build a closed-source solution (no org to do a dual license
> with). The Apache license is (one of) the best options for that and
> certainly the Apache brand doesn't hurt towards building a credible
> alternative to MS Office.
> 
> To that extent it wouldn't surprise me at all to see IBM donating whatever
> their proprietary add-ons from their Lotus product to this project and
> thereby taking a larger role.
> 
> My concern from the ASF's point of view is that how do we protect from IBM
> "doing a Harmony" on this? I guess one advantage is that there's nothing
> else out there and an office work toolset is a necessary feature for many
> vendors ... so there's relatively little risk of a TCK or an OpenJDK type
> alternative happening. If MSFT decides to open up office (not likely) or
> Google decides to open source their corresponding apps bits (again, not
> likely at least until OO has a credible Web offering) something could happen
> but those are far fetched at this point.
> 
> After all that, TDF has unfortunately been left holding the wrong end of the
> stick :(. If I was in TDF I'd definitely feel screwed by Oracle .. but
> really this is not just Oracle but rather the larger value-add community
> around OO saying lets get together. That is not possible without the Apache
> license as those guys all want to make proprietary products. ASF is not the
> bad guy but rather the one who has all the features to host this project as
> a result. To that extent those value-add types are "using" ASF but that's
> not necessarily a bad way for this project to get started. Whether it
> succeeds long term is a function of it becoming a true ASF project with a
> multitude of disparate contributors etc..
> 
> The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know a few
> OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that
> extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as that'll
> confuse end-users.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote on 06/05/2011 04:22:35 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the
>>> project associated with IBM.  IMO you're off by a factor
>>> or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project
>>> seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified.
>>>
>>
>> Joe, it will be my pleasure to astonish you.  But it will take a few more
>> days ;-)
>>
>> It is amazing how much paperwork is involved, at a large corporation, to
>> enable such things.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> 


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


Mime
View raw message