incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [Mac OS X, Intel] some issue with Apple remote
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:45:19 GMT
Please move this discussion away from this mailing list, i think it 
doesn't really belongs to this list.

Everybody can take the code from our svn repository and as long as the 
original author is identified i think it's ok. If the information 
provided by svn is not sufficient we have indeed to solve this problem 
on our side.

So again please stop this discussion here or move it to the LibreOffice 
lists where it belongs to.

If LibreOffice thinks that they can benefit from our work here it's fine 
and they can use it (and i am sure they will). That's allowed by the 
Apache license anyway and hopefully our users of a free available (and 
OpenOffice based) office suite will benefit from this in the end ;-)

Juergen

On 12/5/11 5:09 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi Eric, all,
>
> I am used to a certain amount of vitriol on the Apache OO mailing lists, but I
> can not leave this standing as is.
>
> eric b<eric.bach...@free.fr>  wrote:
>
>> Well, the people who know me know I'm always glad and happy to share
>> my code, everytime I can. But this is not the first time : previous
>> one was about the ARM assembler optimisation in interlock.c for armv7
>> + ISA . It was "fixed" (means my name added) after a (friendly)
>> discussion with Jani Monoses and Björn Michaelsen.
>
> You are implying there was a "first time" were LibreOffice cleared your name of
> your contribtion. This is simply not true. The ARM patch was upstreamed from
> Debian Packaging, where it was already cleared of any author information or bug
> reference. It had therefore to be assumed to be of Debian origin. If you want
> to put any blame, but it there, not on LibreOffice. Once the truth came to
> light (IIRC by my Canonical co-worker Jani Monoses hinting you at it, which
> does not exactly suggest malicious intend), we very quickly contacted you to
> rectify the situation. Ironically, in the process of this, we discovered that
> recent gcc versions provide better code themselves, so none of this code is
> even used in current releases. As the original ASM code is not even SMP-safe
> and all the compilers Ubuntu use provided a better solution, I could have
> dumped that patch -- but we left it in for vanilla gcc 4.5 versions (not Ubuntus
> fixed one). And we (actually Jani) fixed the original patch, so that it would
> be SMP-safe on old, non-Ubuntu compilers. Looking back, I would have loved to
> have never touched that patch at all: it created a lot of work and no extra
> value for LibreOffice on Ubuntu.
>
> As for the patches lifted from Apache by Thorsten: Complain to the guys who
> maintain that nostalgic SCM at Apache to provide more explicit author
> information. LibreOffice really cant be blamed if Apache publishes your work in
> ways that do not suit you.
>
> To sum it up: There was not even a "first time" -- the people on the
> LibreOffice project behaved correctly in both cases.
>
> Best,
>
> Bjoern
>
> See also: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/726529
>
> P.S.: Threadbreaking, because I explicitly had to subscribe for this.


Mime
View raw message