From ooo-dev-return-1779-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Thu Jul 7 12:38:35 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 F05714BC4 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:38:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 19337 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jul 2011 12:38:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 19288 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jul 2011 12:38:35 -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 19280 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jul 2011 12:38:35 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:38:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.175] (HELO mail-iy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.210.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:38:28 +0000 Received: by iym10 with SMTP id 10so868902iym.6 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 05:38:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=opendirective.com; s=opendirective; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=tH1NKnmhEaPH7qc97p1/ZlPwIQGHxft17fT/SrLw6E4=; b=RO5hW0HXhF5mUFkNkBkL2A9t5dyZ6JPC7/bzRnxANdO4VjYiNOo7wi1IWQ6ZmqzWEc op6v3+0GdTbw5v77Z2hK5TuDbv2ZTXOnCbU7M8UWWxECzVLDS54gP7K2v7K8F+iTvTbk NIzRQjB8JhN5VYbVDrQQpOJIaltWQUjcaqvaQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.133.194 with SMTP id i2mr801422ict.250.1310042287537; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 05:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.165.137 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:38:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [94.12.140.58] In-Reply-To: <4E15A3E6.7040904@gmx.net> 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> <1309666612.2224.4397.camel@linux-krcc.site> <4E14E6F1.8020700@oracle.com> <4E15A3E6.7040904@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:38:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: OOO and LibreOffice. From: Ross Gardler To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 7 July 2011 13:17, Mathias Bauer wrote: ... >> One thing would be to collaborate to remove any redundant code. I have heard >> that the LibO people have already worked on this so removing code should be >> something that is not too controversial license-wise and could filter up >> stream from LibO to OOo. (hi guys we removed this this and this, you might >> like to do the same as it hasn't broken anything) Same with identifying >> inefficient stuff that is more a matter of reorganisation or replacing >> existing code with something better. Such revisions could be less of a >> license problem even if not completely resolving the issue. > > This would at least require that someone having done that at LO would > contribute a patch for OOo. Having a patch could help to do the removal > in the same way as in LO. That could make sure that afterwards the code > bases became more similar and merging of code changes could become > easier in the future. Perhaps that's something you should suggest on the > LO dev list. > > (I hope this suggestion isn't seen as an offense - really, if you are > asking for patches you have to ask those who did the work, not those who > might receive it.) My intention is to talk to as many LO folk as I can about the feedback I get on this list. I want to try and work out where there is potential for such collaboration. I want to figure out who can help make it happen etc. I've not talked to the LO folk about this topic yet, I want to be able to go there with some constructive areas of collaboration that are respectful of their licence choice and community objectives. I'm not likely to make any of this happen, I haven't written any C++ code for about 15 years, but I might at least be able to get a conversation going. Keep the suggestions going and don't be scared of suggestions that require us to ask the LO project for patches. I know that brings the question of licences back into it, but for now lets assume everything is possible (I hope LO folk on this list do not think that I am assuming patches will be forthcoming, there may be other approaches that we can take to route around some of these issues, but we won't find them if we don't talk about them). Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com