incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Off topic
Date Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:43:12 GMT
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Ian Lynch <> wrote:
> On 13 December 2011 11:12, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
>> I'm not sure where this meme of "can't be done here in Apache" is coming
>> from.
> Maybe can be done in the future but not right now? Earlier discussions
> suggested that there is no current mechanism to donate money to the Apache
> OO podling. Constraints for making donations were also explained in terms
> of ASF's not for profit status under US law - maybe I misunderstood, but
> that seems to me to be a significant barrier, especially for those not
> conversant with US law on not for profits ;-).

Donate money to an organization, for what?  Obviously an organization
that receives money would need some way to disburse it.  To pay for
servers?  For bandwidth?  Apache seems OK in that department.  To pay
for developers?  Apache doesn't do that.  That doesn't mean someone
else can't do that.  But you don't use Apache as the middleman for
moving money around in that case.  You could have a different
middleman, or several of them, outside of the official Apache project.
 Or you could avoid middlemen altogether and do something using an
online pledge system like Kickstarter:

> There are very few things that can't be done here. The key is that
>> whatever is done under that Apache banner is for the public good. That
>> means it does not benefit any one individual or organisation more than
>> any other.
> So it would be possible to make a direct donation to the OO podling? Rather
> than to ASF in general? Otherwise someone would have to set up a separate
> organisation to eg raise money for marketing they could be sure would get
> used as intended.  Then there is the issue of trademarks when operating
> outside ASF (TeamOO etc). So while the outcome might be achievable its not
> necessarily easy. I'm not saying anything can't be done, but it seems from
> the discussion that getting some things done are going to be very hard work
> with no certainly of a good outcome.

It is not that hard. Take a look at other Apache projects, like
Subversion.  Look at their binary downloads.  These are all 3rd party

You see several business models based on taking the base Apache
Subversion code and then enhancing.

-- VisualSVN has a free 30-day trial download.  Further use requires a license.

-- SlikSVN is free to use, but the download sight promotes their paid
SVN hosting

-- the Collab Net distribution is packages with a stack of related
technologies, IDE integration, and they promote their migration

-- Some are entirely free, open source like the BSD port.

-- WANdisco has a free version as well as an enterprise supported version

-- TortoiseSVN is free but has a "donate" button on their website,
where you can contribute directly to the developers, or buy them
something from their Amazon wish list.

So there are a number of business models there, all flourishing
simultaneously.  That's a healthy ecosystem. Note also that they are
not relying on using the trademark in a way that suggests that they
are the one true subversion client.  They have adopted unique names
and are distinguishing themselves based on their innovations.

Now imagine if Apache stuck itself in the middle there and said it was
going to collect donations and decide how the donations were spent.
By doing that Apache would be competing against the larger ecosystem.
In fact it would probably kill off its own ecosystem.  You would have
a single official Subversion client, with some developers getting paid
via donations to Apache.  But the innovation of the broader ecosystem
would dry up.

This may be a bit hard to imagine, since OOo never really developed
this kind of ecosystem. This was due to license and control issues.
But we have the opportunity now to encourage a healthier ecosystem.


> The limiting factor for creating a truly balanced and complete
>> ecosystem is people getting it done, not rules and regulations.
>> Ross
>> On 13 December 2011 09:40, Ian Lynch <> wrote:
>> > On 12 December 2011 23:44, Louis Suárez-Potts <
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> HI,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 12 December 2011 18:24, Ross Gardler <>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > forum for
>> >> >> ecosystem activity.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Q: Would Apache be the site for that?
>> >> >
>> >> > That all depends on what you mean by "ecosystem activity". Apache
>> >> > exists to produce open source software for the public good.
>> >>
>> >> How nice. :-)
>> >>
>> >> I mean civil as well as governmental commercial (and not) activity
>> >> utilising and normalising within the warp and woof of the everyday the
>> >> work produced by the commons-based peer network. In short, the stuff
>> >> that earns the keep of those who keep the urn: but without burn or
>> >> churn. (sorry, dinnertime)
>> >>
>> >> At OOo we had a simple policy that sought to promote disinterested
>> >> ecosystem activity. I'd be a lot more inclined to relax the
>> >> strictures, as the situation here is quite different. But there were
>> >> some provisions that made sense, and which I long advocated for. These
>> >> included promoting sponsors of work via regulated icons (not garish or
>> >> distracting from the thing of value produced itself), as well as
>> >> unedited listings of service/support providers. I had started a list
>> >> but the DE group under André did a much better job, though it was
>> >> rather unwieldy, as they were the first to admit. Better technology
>> >> now would make for better listing. The extant list:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (The history of posting sponsors' ads is tedious but the risk is
>> >> always one of bleeding volunteers of that which moves them in the
>> >> pursuit of the lucre that moves others. But we can manage that. And
>> >> Ian and I have had historical discussions on this point, though we now
>> >> pretty much agree on the what's what of it.)
>> >>
>> >
>> > If OpenOffice is to reach its impact in terms of potential it needs
>> > vehicles for promotion and distribution beyond just making the code
>> > available from a web site. If that is not possible in the Apache Way with
>> > the Apache web sites, alternatives need to be found. The main issues I'd
>> > anticipate is the use of logos and trademarks and the motivation of the
>> > people involved in terms of a positive effect on development. That is
>> never
>> > going to be easy and has associated risk but there is also risk in doing
>> > nothing simply to avoid that risk.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ian
>> >
>> > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
>> >
>> > +44 (0)1827 305940
>> >
>> > The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
>> > Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
>> > Wales.
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective
> --
> Ian
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
> +44 (0)1827 305940
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.

View raw message