Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
 designates 32.97.182.144 as permitted sender)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimrahKFi+xOnSD56NKJfnJFtD6HUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DE65D8F.8060002@oracle.com>	<4DE66703.4000007@apache.org>
	<OF6666EFBA.245716FC-ON852578A2.005B05CF-852578A2.006515B0@lotus.com>
 <BANLkTimrahKFi+xOnSD56NKJfnJFtD6HUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Message-ID: 
 <OF87C456BE.F7CC9495-ON852578A3.000EB0A9-852578A3.0011660D@lotus.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 23:10:02 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote on 06/01/2011 02:56:10 
PM:

> 
> > We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list, 
developers
> > familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symphony (which is 
our
> > OpenOffice based project).  But then we could have been criticized for 
the
> > proposal being too dominated by IBM.  It is clearly our intent to grow
> > this project, both from our corporate developers, but also by 
recruiting
> > new members to the project, including developers from related open 
source
> > projects (see my previous note)
> 
> And why couldn't IBM do quite the same with LibreOffice, or, even
> better, with a remerged O/LOffice?
> 

I trust I do not need to explain at length to an Apache PMC the relative 
merits of the Apache 2.0 license or the strengths and stability of the 
ASF.  I'll take it as granted that this is well-known to you all.  In any 
case I am a strict adherent to the practical wisdom of not debating open 
source licenses while sober, and I decline to make an exception in this 
case.

A re-merged OO/LO would be great.  Even more ideal a re-merged 
OpenOffice/LibreOffice/Symphony/RedOffice, with greater discipline for how 
we relate to other projects that make smaller customizations (NeoOffice, 
BrOffice, EuroOffice).  But I think the best place for this to happen is 
at Apache. 

Of the options we considered (and we did consider several, including 
LibreOffice's Document Foundation) Apache was the clear top choice.  I 
don't want to denigrate the accomplishments of LibreOffice.  What they 
have seems to work for them.  So instead of pointing out their 
liabilities, let me just enumerate what I see as some of the relative 
strengths of AFS:  pragmatic commercially-friendly open source license, 
proven track record and organizational stability, mature, 
meritocracy-based process and strong technical infrastructure. 

Regards,

-Rob

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