openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: OOO and LibreOffice.
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:03:06 GMT
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.


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.


> S.
> [1]

View raw message