Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of netsroth@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.161.48 as permitted sender)
Sender: Thorsten <netsroth@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 09:32:22 +0200
From: Thorsten Behrens <thb@documentfoundation.org>
To: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
Cc: stercor@gmail.com, ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OOO and LibreOffice.
Message-ID: <20110704073222.GE4755@thinkpad.thebehrens.net>
References: <BANLkTikDx3yVjKZJcr57o95+H=bevXn2jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701cc36ec$5dab9750$1902c5f0$@acm.org>
 <BANLkTik1v+arZ8We2Z=WKaQCjQGvjWn9yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <010001cc3741$51c88740$f55995c0$@acm.org>
 <BANLkTikJJO7YPoa0t7kNMmMX-J8GKrx+ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00d001cc380f$98fec4c0$cafc4e40$@acm.org>
 <1309664343.19050.3.camel@rigel>
 <CAKQbXgBkwyPMN8nY9FJHBd0hHMBYywjgaCygJKLJ+3hLb9tJ4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPDmd-B71bOiEDBN0cHbFbEfsmqzwfPaYofuGBcoiu3CVDhcFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKQbXgCe_wLUOFu7oZFSk7ZrrdqAa--SJqSvbiaGY=9sXD8n7w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2hMgfIw2X+zgXrFs"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgCe_wLUOFu7oZFSk7ZrrdqAa--SJqSvbiaGY=9sXD8n7w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

--2hMgfIw2X+zgXrFs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ross Gardler wrote:
> At present the only way I can see to start doing this is to a) drop
> the ego on both "sides", this is a different world from the one in
> which the fork was seen as necessary. There are still fundamental
> licence differences, but I am sure that, for many, the licence is less
> important than getting results. b) spending some time understanding
> one another (for some that will mean rebuilding relationships) in
> order to work towards your second suggestion...
>=20
Hi Ross,

hm, not sure I like your particular combination of a) and b) here -
understanding the other side should start with admitting that indeed
for a not insubstantial subset of LibreOffice hackers, the license
indeed *is* important. ;)

> I don't know OOo or LO well enough to know if there is scope for a
> "common, well-defined cooperative objective." It would be great if
> some people could spend some time considering this. It might well be
> that there is little scope for true collaboration. However, during the
> proposal phase there were a few people who wanted to explore this.
>=20
To be frank - having two projects targetting the ~same {market,
devs, QA, sponsors, code lines, ...} makes this extra-hard. It's
like asking two boys in a dog fight to both voluntarily step back &
shake hands - whereas in reality, it'll likely only stop after one
side has "won" (for some values of "win" and "reality").

=46rom the earlier discussions, the idea to focus on basis
libraries/functionality at Apache, and build applications on top of
that had some appeal to me - also since it appeared to be much more
in line with (most of) the other Apache projects.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

--2hMgfIw2X+zgXrFs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk4RbIYACgkQ0atnB9QI2h+LpgCgm6O73QhxznbzKlvqutVh14gx
cUQAniD5v7yz35z1osN/M0qE6DJAYF6O
=qDaJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2hMgfIw2X+zgXrFs--