openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Phipps <>
Subject Re: OOO and LibreOffice.
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:11:03 GMT
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
> >
> > On 3 Jul 2011, at 19:43, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> >> But before we can
> >> get to that point we need to address the technical differences between
> >> the two code bases. LO is already 8 months or so adrift of OOo (or at
> >> least that is what I am led to believe).
> >
> > It's worth observing that the code that new developers will be able to
> work on at Apache is also likely to have significant differences from the
> last release from the Sun/Oracle infrastructure, as well as a completely
> different workflow. I suspect we'll all have no choice but to accept there's
> a lot of refactoring and relearning to do whatever happens.
> >
> >> What happened to the plan for OOo and TDF people to get together?
> >
> > We attempted it here at FISL and had a good turnout to the sessions Jomar
> Silva organised (and which I attended too). The result is a commitment (in
> the form of a letter of intent signed by on behalf of the responsible
> minister) by the Brazilian government to invest in both AOOo and
> LibreOffice. I hope we'll have a news posting about it early in the week.
> >
> > It's tough, because there's a lot of emotion and history on both "sides",
> but I agree with Jomar that it's possible to devise ways to work together.
> One challenge we'll have with the new developers that Brazil will commit
> will be getting engaged with the codebase. We think a great way for them to
> do that now (rather than at an unknown point in the future) is to use the
> "Easy Hacks" page that LibreOffice has put together to go start work on the
> code now.
> >
> > I suggest we encourage others to do the same.  Doing so is educational
> and co-operative, and TDF are perfectly happy to accept contributions under
> the Apache license.
> >
> Simon,
> Any chance of TDF requiring Apache 2.0 for new code contributions, in
> addition to their current requirement for LGPL/MPL?  My reading of
> their rules suggests that a simple majority of their Steering
> Committee authorize such a change.  Doing so would open up many more
> possibilities for future collaboration and cooperation.  Not doing so
> would severely constrain possibilities for cooperation.

It's certainly worth asking, although I believe their current LGPLv3+MPL
policy is more a suggestion than a requirement so it would ultimately be up
to each contributor. Perhaps you could ask on the steering-discuss list[1]?



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message