incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
Date Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:34:20 GMT

On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
>> I am pretty sure we are safe.
> good, I have no stake in the old bugzilla content... so as long as you
> are confident that all such stake-holder share Rob's interpretation of
> what 'accepted, for incorporation' means (i.e that mere posting on a
> ML or attachment to a bug repport means 'accepted, for
> incorporation'... (I wonder why we bother with code review then, if
> any patch submitted is deemed 'accepted, for incorporation')....
>> - it is my understanding that Oracle will also be making
>> legal provisions about the bugzilla database. They provided
>> the dump, its not like we stole anything.
> I haven't seen the secret SGA... but I don't recall mention by
> Oracle's representative of a blanket re-licensing of the bugzilla
> databse under AL2... or for that matter about anything but a list of
> file based on a specific snapshot of the source tree.
>>>> The problem is not really integrating the codebases
>>> but the
>>>> fact that the ownership of LO is so disperse and that
>>> TDF
>>>> is incapable of taking any relicensing decision.
>>> This is not a problem, this is a feature.
>> It is a limitation. Only the copyright owner can make
>> effective license claims so if the time comes to
>> enforce the LGPL you will find the surprise of owning
>> less than 10% the code doesn't help much.
> That is much more than 0% which is what both SUN/Oracle CLA and AL2
> effectively offer.
> It is interesting though that you think that one need to 'own' more
> than 800K lines of LO code before having standing.
> Oh, and you are overlooking one option: it is quite possible to
> designate an entity as your agent in these matter. so a bunch 'small'
> copyright owner could mandate TDF, for example, to represent them.
>> Well I use FreeBSD and I am very glad to have helped Apple
>> overthrow Microsoft.
> We are not quite there yet... but in anycase this is 'meet the new
> boss, same as the old boss'.
>> out there underestimate the resources SUN/Oracle put
>> into OpenOffice.
> Ask Rob how much IBM bill internally for translation on a per-word
> basis. Then calculate the investment for OpenOffice for 100+
> languages... and you'll get an idea why Rob is so interested in
> Pootle.
> It seems that IBM, contrary to you, is very aware of the resource
> invested by the community.

Certainly, that would only be smart. I think having common, standard translations for Office
document terminology can only be a good thing for all. Margins, Justification, Fonts, Paragraphs,
and the rest, it is better to have a common set of translations available to all. Sure that
saves $Millions for IBM (and Oracle and Novell and Microsoft), but it also lowers market barriers
to a small person's idea. You don't have to be a large corporation to actually have translations
to a large number of languages for common terms of art. Is that not what software freedom
is really all about?


> Norbert

View raw message