incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
Date Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:13:45 GMT
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)

On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:15, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 
>> On 03/06/2011 16:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar
suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads together.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to:
>>> 
>>>  1. The podling goes along as suggested.
>>>  2. The TDF continues business as usual.
>> 
>> 
>> I read it differently and more like what was proposed in this thread.
>> 
>> The podling goes along as suggested and TDF continues to provide essential support
to existing users of the the end user product that is currently called OpenOffice.org to some
and LibreOffice to others).
>> 
> 
> But what of the *development* of the code?

Ahhh... Yes I see something missing from Simons mail here. I assumed that the LibreOffice
distribution would gradually migrate to using the core components proposed here (Apache ODFSuite
as Simin called it) and thus collaboration on those components would also migrate here. 

> If business-as-usual
> is both sides independently developing the codebase, then
> how does that address what is, I guess, a main issue?

It doesn't help if there are two code bases, but if one project focusses  on building permissively
licensed core components that are needed in productivity apps in general then collaboration
can happen on those components. 

LibreOffice can continue to build an LGPL office suite (using those core components and their
build infrastructure) and others can continue to build  their own end user products under
whatever license they choose (which might include a permissively licences end user product
here). 

If I understand correctly the donations from Oracle are not going to enable us to build an
appropriately licenced end user product without significant work. Furthermore, the proposal
and various press releases seem to indicate that A key focus of this project will be componentisation
of the code base making it easier to reuse. 

> Is the
> idea that the ASF contribute code which is then consumed
> by TDF and that any patches to TDF remain unaccessible to
> the ASF? Does this result in the communities driving closer
> together or farther apart?

My hope is that the benefits of collaboration over maintaining a fork will bring us closer
together. I realise this means copyleft only folk have to come towards us for this to work.
 Certainly some people who don't like permissive licenses will never do this. I hope there
are enough who see collaboration as being the right option. 

I may be being naive, I prefer to think I'm an optimist. 


However, maybe your right. Maybe I'm trying to link two ideas that should be kept separate
so they can be evaluated separately. 

Ross


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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