incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Thiebaud <nthieb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Not new but under a new hat
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:40:28 GMT
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 September 2011 13:31, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:05 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > or why not just shake hands and part as friends.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and is
>> less
>> > good for Open Source in general.
>>
>> Well, as you can guess I disagree - it's only inefficient if one
>> doggedly holds to the idea that the two projects should (nor need to)
>> share a common code base going forward - by why would that be?
>
>
> Because it takes more resources to maintain two different code bases.
>  Resources are at a premium therefore duplicating effort makes no logical
> sense. This is simple logic, nothing to do with dogmatism. The illogical and
> emotional position is to do with ownership, not the logic of optimising
> resources.

These concerns have been raise during the incubation proposal review
back in June... and, back then, were rejected. Rob even wrote a blog
dismissing them
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/openoffice-libreoffice-and-the-scarcity-fallacy.html

>I come back to the point that if division is intrinsically good, why not
>fork Inkscape, Audacity, Gimp, etc etc.

All these project a free-software, and no corporation is a position to
re-license them. So the only reason for a fork would be a technical
one,
and technical issues rarely escalate to a fork. (one notable exception
is egcc vs gcc... and indeed that lead to a re-unification... but that
worked because gcc did not decided to switch to an incompatible
license in response to the fork)

Norbert

Mime
View raw message