openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Phipps <>
Subject Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
Date Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:49:32 GMT
I'm at a dinner so my apoligies for the top-post, but really, I'm trying to
help Pedro (and now it seems you) see things from /outside/ the Apache
worldview and understand why the mistrust is brewing. I can recidte the
Apache mantra too, it's just no-one here needs to hear it any more :-)

Simon Phipps
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Oct 25, 2011 3:01 PM, "Shane Curcuru" <> wrote:

> Thank you Pedro for the very well thought out and politely presented
> explanation of your point.  It's very helpful to have this kind of honest
> and detailed discussion, especially when tempers run high, and doubly so
> when there's such a clear (and unfortunate) distrust between AOOo community
> members and folks working on TDF/LO.
> Personally, I agree: the point is that if TDF/LO also encourages /
> documents as an additional optional step / even simply allows in some
> obvious public way for people submitting patches that could apply to AOOo
> under both licenses, that would be a big win for the ecosystem. AOOo code
> will already be fully useable by LO, so I find it hard to see what the harm
> is in allowing TDF/LO contributors to know about the option of dual
> licensing specific patches under the AL.
> This is certainly not something aimed at hurting LO, and certainly doesn't
> apply to new or changed work in LO.  But it would be nice to discuss the
> possibility of having code that both projects can use without getting
> everyone's hackles up.  Especially since the alternative seems to be that
> Simon (I think) is saying he'd effectively rather see everyone contributing
> code exclusively to one project, and explicitly not allowing it to be
> contributed into the other.
> This is exactly why I believe in the Apache license.  I believe that
> *people* should be free.  Users of our Apache software should be free to use
> it as they see fit.  If they contribute changes back, that's great - but
> what's important for open source is that humans now have access to a wealth
> of powerful software for free that they can use openly, easily, and for
> their own purposes, without undue restrictions.
> - Shane
> P.S. and really, while the iCLA is a required step to become a committer at
> Apache, it really shouldn't be such a large club to hit us over the head
> repeatedly.  It's not needed for most patches like I thought we were
> discussing here.
> On 10/25/2011 7:25 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> Hi Simon;
>> I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Ethos is
>> something that goes well beyond a license, and once you
>> read the iCLA its not an imposible thing to ask ( you
>> signed it), and its surely not what SUN had in place.
>> That said, and its something I have argued about
>> publicly with Rob, while the iCLA is a requisite to
>> become a committer, it is not a requisite to contribute.
>> Furthermore, once we start doing releases (and trust me,
>> we will get there) they are likely to start including AL2
>> code anyways.
>> Am I naive? Yes. I was never part of the previous OOo
>> community led by SUN so perhaps not having that trauma
>> helps me see things a lot simpler than they are.
>> There is an evident lack of confidence in us over there
>> and as I said before, in private, we cant start activities
>> like a shared security list if there is no confidence first.
>> I stand to the principle that we are neutral, and that
>> every vendor or community member is free to join or leave
>> whenever they want
>> Pedro.
>> --- On Tue, 10/25/11, Simon Phipps<>  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011
>>> at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni<>
>>> wrote:
>>> If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2
>>> for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge
>>> advance to get a bit nearer both camps.
>>> Given licenses are the expression of the ethos of a
>>> community, it's disingenuous and divisive to assume any
>>> community will drop its governance approach like this,
>>> Pedro. It translates as "the path to collaboration is
>>> your surrender; we can negotiate once you've done
>>> that".  You make it sound so innocent, too, by missing
>>> out the other requirement that Apache would have for
>>> contributors to sign an ICLA and thus join Apache :-)
>>> S.

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