From ooo-dev-return-1540-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Jul 4 01:11:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B82374E02 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 01:11:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 80316 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jul 2011 01:11:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 80283 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jul 2011 01:11:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 80269 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jul 2011 01:11:49 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:11:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of simon@webmink.com designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.182] (HELO mail-qy0-f182.google.com) (209.85.216.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:11:44 +0000 Received: by qyk38 with SMTP id 38so3280593qyk.6 for ; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.88.132 with SMTP id a4mr4279825qcm.186.1309741883244; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:11:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.224.67 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 18:11:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [189.94.46.104] In-Reply-To: References: <1309381916.82460.YahooMailClassic@web113503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <00c701cc36ec$5dab9750$1902c5f0$@acm.org> <010001cc3741$51c88740$f55995c0$@acm.org> <00d001cc380f$98fec4c0$cafc4e40$@acm.org> <1309664343.19050.3.camel@rigel> <4F66DB94-E1C4-41F3-B2D8-163747C6767C@webmink.com> From: Simon Phipps Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 22:11:03 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: OOO and LibreOffice. To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364ee472b2c21e04a7340bbc --0016364ee472b2c21e04a7340bbc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > > On 3 Jul 2011, at 19:43, Ross Gardler wrote: > > > >> But before we can > >> get to that point we need to address the technical differences between > >> the two code bases. LO is already 8 months or so adrift of OOo (or at > >> least that is what I am led to believe). > > > > It's worth observing that the code that new developers will be able to > work on at Apache is also likely to have significant differences from the > last release from the Sun/Oracle infrastructure, as well as a completely > different workflow. I suspect we'll all have no choice but to accept there's > a lot of refactoring and relearning to do whatever happens. > > > >> What happened to the plan for OOo and TDF people to get together? > > > > We attempted it here at FISL and had a good turnout to the sessions Jomar > Silva organised (and which I attended too). The result is a commitment (in > the form of a letter of intent signed by on behalf of the responsible > minister) by the Brazilian government to invest in both AOOo and > LibreOffice. I hope we'll have a news posting about it early in the week. > > > > It's tough, because there's a lot of emotion and history on both "sides", > but I agree with Jomar that it's possible to devise ways to work together. > One challenge we'll have with the new developers that Brazil will commit > will be getting engaged with the codebase. We think a great way for them to > do that now (rather than at an unknown point in the future) is to use the > "Easy Hacks" page that LibreOffice has put together to go start work on the > code now. > > > > I suggest we encourage others to do the same. Doing so is educational > and co-operative, and TDF are perfectly happy to accept contributions under > the Apache license. > > > > Simon, > > Any chance of TDF requiring Apache 2.0 for new code contributions, in > addition to their current requirement for LGPL/MPL? My reading of > their rules suggests that a simple majority of their Steering > Committee authorize such a change. Doing so would open up many more > possibilities for future collaboration and cooperation. Not doing so > would severely constrain possibilities for cooperation. > It's certainly worth asking, although I believe their current LGPLv3+MPL policy is more a suggestion than a requirement so it would ultimately be up to each contributor. Perhaps you could ask on the steering-discuss list[1]? S. [1] http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ --0016364ee472b2c21e04a7340bbc--