Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rabastus@gmail.com designates
 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rabastus@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <00a201cc67f7$ef9f2870$cedd7950$@acm.org>
References: 
 <CAP-ksoiMPKt+qRb5Fm+5F0gMMt-VjbyU7qnKmEzRh2jMA7G4ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E5D5D7F.2030001@gmx.ch>
	<CAKQbXgCij2xW27nfpUkP+cqPVE3VUw_Pm3mcWN63P6YLP4yYqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110831105251.GA18814@daniel3.local>
	<CAKQbXgD8imnQkgwv1DbyuPjfGEEx-nPMzU0offNdt-EpO1U4FQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<00a201cc67f7$ef9f2870$cedd7950$@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:28:37 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksogoPbL+4kPCWg9ijQ8EDD+LP4zyHhf4vKMazR-+sgN=+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Apache project community and external community
From: Rob Weir <rob@robweir.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> Ross,
>
> That makes no sense. =C2=A0We are here because of the Oracle SGA, not bec=
ause we all got together and said, hey gang, let's run over to Apache. =C2=
=A0And some of us, such as myself, were not part of the OpenOffice.org comm=
unity in any meaningful way.
>

The Oracle SGA only gave you additional rights, namely the ability to
use the code under ALv2.  It didn't take any rights away.  All of the
rights the community had to use the code before, under LGPL, still
remain.

Remember, no one was forced to come to Apache.  No one held your hand
to the pen and made you sign up as an initial committer.  You did that
voluntarily.  We all did.

> It is true we here are a self-selected bunch who are chasing a fait accom=
pli, but we are not the OpenOffice.org community by any means.
>

We are the Apache OpenOffice.org community.  I think only mischief
comes from talking about the "OpenOffice.org community" in the
abstract, divorced from any open source project.  The lights will go
off on the Oracle servers eventually.  At that point you are either a
member of the AOOo community, the LO community (or both),  or you are
community in exile, roaming the desert without a project.

> Our challenge is to embrace the broader community and be as hospitable to=
 them as we can while bringing the on-going software development under ASF =
and the Apache Way.
>

And their challenge is to understand how Apache works.

> We are not talking about changing anything or arguing that it should have=
 happened differently. =C2=A0There is no point to that. =C2=A0But we should=
 not oversimplify the state of affairs, especially when it is a potential a=
ffront to those who had no say in the matter and who we want to see continu=
e as respected members of the broad community.
>

LibreOffice has been around for nearly a year.  Anyone who wanted to
go there has had ample opportunity.  The legacy OpenOffice.org has
been stagnant for most of 2011.  Anyone who wants to start a new
initiative, independent of LibreOffice, independent of Apache, and
independent of the legacy Oracle-sponsored project, has that ability
under the LGPL.  If that would bring greater joy to anyone's life, to
do that, then I wish them the best of luck.

But it doesn't make sense for one to come to Apache voluntarily and
then complain that Apache is not identical to Oracle-sponsored OOo.

> =C2=A0- Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 04:16
> To: Daniel Shahaf
> Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache project community and external community
>
> On 31 August 2011 11:52, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> Ross Gardler wrote on Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:25:14 +0100:
>>> Is it the way OOo used to work? No, but OOo has chosen to come to the
>>> ASF now.
>>
>> Whose decision was it to move to the ASF?
>
> The community that resides here. Lets not open that particular
> argument again, it's done now and I tried to acknowledge those not
> happy with the situation when I said:
>
> Is it the only way? No, but fortunately our permissive licence means
> other can do it their way whilst still benefiting from the reduced
> cost of development.
>
> Ross
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>