openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Not new but under a new hat
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:52:46 GMT
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Lynch <> wrote:
> On 28 September 2011 13:45, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Thorsten Behrens
>> <> wrote:
>> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> >> > > It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the
>> >> > > known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best
>> >> > > choice for our users.
>> >> > >
>> >> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that
>> >> > name can only be made by the ASF, or can they?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> how are other Apache projects find there way in a Linux distro? For AOO
>> it
>> >> can be probably handled in the same way.
>> >>
>> > There's precious little Apache projects with gui, and splash screen
>> > FWIW - reading again, it's
>> > very unlikely that anyone but Apache can publish OOo-branded
>> > binaries, and/or make material additions to an official tarball
>> > release. So "reunify as OOo" sounds very much like a non-starter to
>> > me.
>> >
>> If you have a specific proposal for use of Apache-owned trademarks,
>> then you are welcome to submit it to this list.  We can then review,
>> discuss and make a recommendation to Apache branding.
> Yes it is straightforward, I have been through the process so I can vouch
> for it from first hand experience.
>> But I think reunification is more than brand reunification.  Simply
>> renaming LO to OOo would only confuse the users, since the products
>> differ in features and quality.
> Which is why I suggested LibO on Linux and AOO on Windows and Mac. Google
> has different brand names for Chrome on Windows and Linux.
>>  Before we think of brand concerns, I
>> think we first need progress on community, license and code, first at
>> the level of greater collaboration, then greater compatibility, then
>> maybe reunification.
> The thing that matters is reunification of a core of code that makes more
> efficient use of the developer resources for both communities. It seems to
> me that there is a logic in relating the licensing to proprietary platforms
> like Windows and Mac and Open Source like Linux. So if TDF focussed its
> resources on fantastic builds for Linux and perhaps Android and ASF on
> Windows and Mac it immediately makes things more manageable. There can be
> common contributions to core code like libraries at Apache under the ASF
> license which then come down to LGPL in any case. It would make it possible
> to manage resources optimally within the constraint of having two distinct
> communities. Names and branding can be sorted out if there is a political
> will to share and optimise  development. I would say that the primary goal
> is to further odf as the universal standard. That will be best achieved by
> combining development resources not fragmenting them. We should put politics
> aside and work out how to best achieve the primary goal with the available
> resources.  Find the reasons why we can make it work, not all the reasons it
> won't work.

If TDF wants to take the AOOo source code and build it, with or
without enhancements, and release it under the name "LibreOffice" for
use with Linux distros, then they are welcome to do that.  They need
no additional permissions from Apache or this project.  If they wanted
us to have a link on our webpage to their Linux distro, that is easy
to do as well.

If you look at other Apache C++ projects you see a similar thing.  For
example. Subversion release are officially only source releases, but
they then point to 3rd party binary builds, with a disclaimer:

But note that in any given platform there are multiple 3rd party
releases.  There is no exclusivity.  Similarly, I'd expect that we
would list IBM Symphony releases, on all platforms, once we are
derived from AOOo source.

I think it comes down to this:  We have different derivatives of OOo:
LO, Symphony, RedOffice, etc.  There is even a "LibreOffice, Novell
Edition" out there if you want "peace of mind" (their words) [1].   If
the different releases are going to distinguish themselves at the
edges, in terms of support, warranty, bundled add-ins and extensions,
branding, etc., then it benefits all of us to simply work on the core
in one place.  But if the products (and their communities and
corporate sponsors) wish to diverge their feature sets then this is
trickier to handle.

In any case, I think we should avoid treating LO or AOOo as a unified
mass of opinion, where every participant in each project thinks
identically and agrees.  I know there are many LO participants who
joined that project out of opposition to Oracle's neglect of OOo, but
without any great love of Novell/SUSE and their entanglements with
Microsoft.  But at the time there were no good alternatives.

Things are different now.  Now they have an alternative in AOOo.  We
should continue to move forward with our vision.  As our project and
community develops and we get closer to a solid release, the power of
an open, meritocratic development process at Apache will be more
evident.  The volunteer who easily moved from OOo to LO will easily
move to AOOo once we show ourselves to have progress, vitality,
encouragement and fun.  But we have a lot of work to get there.  But
this is not a race to see who can reformat code indentation in 8
million lines of code the fastest.   Honestly, the state of the
community in 6 months is more critical than the state of the code in 6
months.  The community is the platform we build the project on.



> --
> 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