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 16:27:03 GMT
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <> wrote:
> Further points.
> OOo differed from Mozilla, for instance, but resembled Eclipse in that we accepted funds
for development work. At a conference hosted by financial firms where I represented OOo and
there were representatives of Eclipse and Moz., Mike M. and I made similar points: That OOo
can be used as a vehicle for alerting developers and other contributors of paid opportunities
to contribute code.
> I'd be in favour of re-doing that, but stress that code contributed must comply with
the prevailing license, though I'd also have no problem with dual licensing.
> This and others are actually viable business models, and we showed as much with OOo's
long tenure. The issue that we had to deal with was that the owning companies pretty much
clipped our wings and prevented us from becoming what we could.

Consider three ecosystem models:

A) A single distribution of the open source product, from a single
central website, with a single highly promoted and trademarked name,
which raises funds
and distributes it to its members to sustain a development effort.

B) A single distribution of the open source product, from a single
central website, with a single highly promoted and trademarked name,
where members set up their own series of fund-raising initiatives to
direct contributions to themselves based on their claimed affiliation
with and contributions to the one project.

C) A single core open source projects with multiple downstream
products based on it, each of which distributes its own package and
develops and executes on ts own business model.

A) is what we call a corporation.  C) is more like what Apache
encourages.  B) is confusing, and what (IMHO) OOo was trying to do.
I'm not sure how you can do that without infringing on the trademark,
and causing a conflict with those executing on C).


> But that was then.
> Louis
> On 2011-12-13, at 11:12 , Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> On 2011-12-13, at 10:43 , Rob Weir wrote:
>>> 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.
>> You are in error. Actually, OOo did develop numerous such ecosystems where one could
donate funds or contribute work. These were autonomously managed, for the most part, by the
NLC projects. But we also used a central dyad, SPI and TeamOOo, and the contributions were
from users.
>> We also had many related businesses around the world depending upon and making money
from OOo code. Key examples are in Malaysia and region; India, but also Brazil, Spain and
so on. A lot moved to LibreOffice. But the point is ODF and the code that implements it.
>> That said, I would very much like to re-establish the ecosystem that we created over
10 years of work—that's why I am a little annoyed that you so cavalierly dismissed what
we have done, but I'm sure I misinterpreted and misread and didn't read right what you wrote
and my apologies, Rob, for being impatient and no doubt unjustifiably indignant—but anyway,
I'd very much like to recapture the work.
>> For reference, the usual links:
>> lists many and points to others
>> These two point to support options, most of which are out of date, and to those who
have notified us (or we've been told about) who are significant users of OOo. This list does
not really include LibreOffice or Symphony or other OOo-related implementations, such as EuroOffice
(I think that's its name) and so on. And there are many such.
>> louis

View raw message