[VOTE] Release Apache HugeGraph (Incubating) 1.2.0 rc1
Hello Incubator Community, This is a call for vote to release Apache HugeGraph (Incubating) version 1.2.0 The Apache HugeGraph community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache HugeGraph(Incubating) version 1.2.0 We now kindly request the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this incubator release. HugeGraph community vote thread: - https://lists.apache.org/thread/mnxld09b2ozwldcxb0rpp6s7cdbdnvsw Vote result thread: - https://lists.apache.org/thread/wns67scpfvcltk33pl403jl48pd0hc61 The release candidate: - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hugegraph/1.2.0/ Git tag & Commit hash for the release: - https://github.com/apache/incubator-hugegraph/tree/1.2.0 (7635c67) - https://github.com/apache/incubator-hugegraph-toolchain/tree/1.2.0 (f85dcf3) - https://github.com/apache/incubator-hugegraph-computer/tree/1.2.0 (0500fec) - https://github.com/apache/incubator-hugegraph-commons/tree/1.2.0 (33fa9ed) Release notes: - https://hugegraph.apache.org/docs/changelog/hugegraph-1.2.0-release-notes/ Keys to verify the Release Candidate: - https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/hugegraph/KEYS The release GPG user ID: simon (m...@apache.org) The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number of votes are reached. Please vote accordingly: [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason More detail checklist please refer: - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Incubator+Release+Checklist Steps to validate the release，Please refer to: English Version: - https://hugegraph.apache.org/docs/contribution-guidelines/validate-release/ Chinese Version: - https://hugegraph.apache.org/cn/docs/contribution-guidelines/validate-release/ Thanks, On behalf of Apache HugeGraph(Incubating) community
[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache HugeGraph(incubating) 1.2.0 rc1
Hi Incubator PMC mentors, The vote to release Apache HugeGraph(incubating) 1.2.0 rc1 has passed with 3 (+1 binding) and no +0 or -1 votes. Binding votes: - Justin Mclean (jmclean) - Yu Li (liyu) - Trista Pan (panjuan) Vote thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/pb8drvn2cb16qwzw4wx8csm6qh6cd03j Thanks for reviewing and voting for our release candidate. We will proceed with publishing the approved artifacts and sending out the announcement soon. Simon Cheung On behalf of Apache HugeGraph(Incubating) community
Re: Making Daffodil Replicator an Open Source : Suggestion
On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 05:20, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Ashish Srivastava wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We are a product based company named Daffodil Software Ltd, based in > > India. We have developed many good products using JAVA out of which our > > two premium product Daffodil DB (an RDBMS) and Daffodil Replicator > > (database utility software) is largely accepted by world software > > community. > > > > We are planning to make our Daffodil Replicator an open source project. > > > > How can we make it with www.apache.org please let us know how we have to > > proceed. > > > > I visited at http://incubator.apache.org but unable to find the answer > > how to proceed in order to make our product open source. > > I'm cross-posting to lists where there might be interest in helping you > out on this. > > > www.daffodildb.com Hi Ashish, The following is just my personal opinion, as a member of the ASF (Apache Software Foundation); I am not speaking on behalf of the ASF. I think it is great that you are considering releasing some of your code under an open-source licence. I am sure there are a number of people that are willing to offer advice on the process of releasing your code as open-source. And if you do this, you are certainly welcome to reuse the Apache Public License legal document as the base for the license terms you release your code under; the ASF and its legal advisors deliberately designed the license in a way that makes it easy for non-ASF-hosted projects to use. However if you are suggesting that the code you release may be hosted and maintained by the Apache Software Foundation, I personally think this is unlikely to happen. Firstly, the code you are considering releasing under an open-source licence is an add-on to a proprietory product. The ASF is unlikely to consider adopting that kind of project. This doesn't mean that making the code open-source is a bad idea, it's just something that the ASF usually avoids being involved with. Secondly when the ASF adopts existing code, the provider of the code is expected to show evidence that there is a group of developers willing to continue maintenance and development of the code in the future. Apache doesn't want to end up hosting lots of code with no associated developers. Given that the code you are considering releasing can only be used with a proprietory database which does not have a large market share, I think this will be a difficult thing for the Daffodil Replicator project to demonstrate. If your replicator tool can actually replicate data for multiple different brands of database then please let us know; that would make the project much more interesting, and therefore more likely to obtain an adequate pool of developers. In particular, if it could be used with the IBM "CloudScape" product which has recently been offered by IBM and accepted by the ASF (and to be renamed "Derby" I believe), there could be significant interest. The result could well be an improved replicator for both Derby and Daffodil - but only if the architecture of your current code is not too tightly bound to the Daffodil database. If you are interested in discussing this further, then please describe what Daffodil Software expects to gain by outsourcing this software. There are a number of different open-source licences available, and which one is appropriate depends upon the business strategy of Daffodil. The ASF always uses the apache license, which is a "BSD-like" license, but there are many successful open-source projects that use a different approach. You may wish to investigate MySQL and JBoss as alternative business models. As I am sure you are aware, the ASF is not the only way to make code open-source. You can always host the source code and associated development framework (newsgroups, email lists, etc) on your own site, or use the SourceForge site. If you let us know a little more about the business goals of Daffodil Software we may be able to offer better advice. Disclaimer: No responsibility is taken for any consequences of you or your company acting on any statements made in this email. Regards, Simon PS: Sorry for the wide cross-posting. Nicola's reply suggested this topic may be of interest to all these groups.. PPS: Nicola, I hope Ashish is actually subscribed to one of the lists receiving this email. If this is not the case, could you please forward this email. Thanks. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE:Making Daffodil Replicator an Open Source : Suggestion
ous about transferring power over the project from itself to the open-source community that may form around the project. Of course if your company owners are simply motivated by goodwill to the world and willing to pay developers to work on something with no expectation of any return, that is fine too - just not so common :-) Having good business reasons for engaging in open-source projects is nothing to be concerned about. IBM, Sun, BEA and others have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the ASF, and I don't think anyone regards them as charities. If you are still interested in offering this code for adoption as an ASF project (and I hope you are), I would suggest that you draft a new email describing the features of Daffodil Replicator (esp. its cross-database support) and include info on your motivations for this project, then email this list again. It's unfortunate that no-one other than me has responded so far, but I think there *will* be interest in this. Unfortunately, two attributes that are greatly useful when participating in open-source are Persistence and Patience :-) I recommend you read the documention at: http://incubator.apache.org for more information about how the ASF starts new projects. To members of the incubator PMC: now would be a good time to speak up if you disagree with anything I've said! Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harmony: project purpose
Hi, Can someone clarify for me why Harmony is being proposed when GNU Classpath, Kaffe and other projects are quite a long way to satisfying the goal of a Free Java environment? Is it: * That SUN is not expected to ever grant a free license to run the TCK for a GPL-licensed project, so the only way to get a "certified" free Java implementation is to ignore the existing GPL'd stuff and start again from scratch? * That you feel that more contributors will be involved in an Apache-licensed project than in a GPL-licensed project, resulting in a better overall end result? If so, why? * That you feel that the availability of an Apache-licensed project is important enough to duplicate all the existing GPL'd effort? If so, why? Who in particular wants an Apache-licensed implementation and can't accept a GPL'd one? * That Kaffe/Classpath are somehow flawed and that it is necessary to start again? * That because Apache is a well-respected player in the Java community that a project hosted at Apache will be so much better accepted that it is worth discarding all the Kaffe/Classpath work done so far? Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FAQ for Apache Harmony
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 19:23 -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> How does SWT relate? > > > > It really doesn't. I think of it as an extra-J2SE application API. > > > > But there has been quite a bit of back and forth about SWT and Swing so > > this > > seemed like a question someone might ask > > I think, to make it clear to the world that open source and adhering to > standards are not in conflict, SWT should not be a part of Harmony's > builds/releases until it is part of J2SE proper. If SWT is offered to us > it should be (for now) a separate project. Are there any legal implications for "extending" Java? If I remember correctly, it was Microsoft's decision to include additional features (esp. "delegates") in its Java implementation that caused Sun to sue them. Would this new implementation be legally forbidden from implementing new core features not present in the Sun specification? One of the *nice* points of having a Free Java implementation is being able to improve on things. Re SWT: I presume there would be no legal problem with "Harmony" distributions bundling the SWT libraries with it (as these are not core language modifications, and the classes are not in the java.* or javax.* namespaces). However I would agree that there isn't much point in ever doing so; the major benefit of having libs bundled is that application developers can just *assume* the feature is present when coding. But as Harmony is likely to be a minor player for at least a decade to come, that assumption couldn't be made by developers and therefore it doesn't seem to bring any benefits for Harmony to bundle SWT or any such "extension" libraries. Having SWT development hosted as a separate Apache project is another thing though - I would quite like to see that! Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony: project purpose
Unfortunately, legally isn't it impossible for a GPL'd project and an ASF'd project to *have* "synergies"? If GNU (who presumably have a copyright on all the Classpath code) are willing to relicense under the APL, then that would work. Same for Kaffe (though probably more difficult unless Kaffe require copyright assignment as part of contributions as GNU do). But the proposal document doesn't state either. Without that, only general "design principles" can be shared between Harmony and these projects, which really isn't of much use in the Classpath case as the classes must adhere to the Sun TCK which must be pretty detailed on library class behaviour. Sharing design discussions with Kaffe developers may be somewhat more productive, but even so 90% of the work is in the code - which cannot be transferred to an APL-licensed project. This proposal seems *so* much work to reimplement stuff already done under the GPL (unless that code can be relicensed as described above). I'm curious to know what the benefit of all that work is.. Regards, Simon On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 22:34 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Simon, > > People working on Kaffe/Classpath are gonna advise us..see their names > on the proposal :) We (Apache Gump team) has been working with them > to make Kaffe/Classpath better for a while now > (http://brutus.apache.org/gump/kaffe/buildLog.html). Harmony is going > to increase synergies. We are working in parallel with FSF folks on > the licensing issues as well for while now. Please see the FAQ as > well. we are gonna leverage every bit of code and expertise that we > can to make this happen. > > -- dims > > On 5/6/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Can someone clarify for me why Harmony is being proposed when GNU > > Classpath, Kaffe and other projects are quite a long way to satisfying > > the goal of a Free Java environment? > > Is it: > > > > * That SUN is not expected to ever grant a free license to run the TCK > > for a GPL-licensed project, so the only way to get a "certified" free > > Java implementation is to ignore the existing GPL'd stuff and start > > again from scratch? > > > > * That you feel that more contributors will be involved in an > > Apache-licensed project than in a GPL-licensed project, resulting in a > > better overall end result? If so, why? > > > > * That you feel that the availability of an Apache-licensed project is > > important enough to duplicate all the existing GPL'd effort? If so, why? > > Who in particular wants an Apache-licensed implementation and can't > > accept a GPL'd one? > > > > * That Kaffe/Classpath are somehow flawed and that it is necessary to > > start again? > > > > * That because Apache is a well-respected player in the Java community > > that a project hosted at Apache will be so much better accepted that it > > is worth discarding all the Kaffe/Classpath work done so far? > > > > Regards, > > > > Simon > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony: project purpose
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 23:04 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > [snip] > > Suggestion: the way to encourage people to move to the > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list is to stop responding to > questions posted here. > > It only encourages them. I'm happy to ask future questions on harmony-dev if it is the appropriate list. However what I am asking about is really related to *whether* Harmony should be accepted as an Incubator project (ie it's related to the current VOTE thread on this list). Isn't this list therefore the correct forum for that discussion? Please let me know; I'm subscribed to harmony-dev and am happy to follow up there if it's a better place. Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Harmony: project purpose
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 23:10 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Simon Kitching wrote: > > > legally isn't it impossible for a GPL'd project and an > > ASF'd project to *have* "synergies"? > > Not at all. Individual authors may contribute their own original works, and > do not give up that right. Furthermore, we can design architectures and > interface specifications that permit pluggability while isolating client > code from the implementation (and license) of the pluggable. Think how JDBC > or JNDI isolate the code from the service provider classes. That doesn't > solve distribution issues caused by licensing, but it does address a coding > issue. > > Right now we're putting a structure -- process and community -- in place. > The goal is to work WITH others. As with all other ASF projects, we'll be > very careful about provenance when accepting code. But why bother to "work with others"? Why not just join the existing GNU Classpath and Kaffe projects and work within th > > The Apache Harmony Project is about finding the "harmonics" -- projects and > people with whom to collaborate -- bring them together. And don't forget > that we have a bunch of harmonics here already. JNDI code with the > Directory project. JDBC code with Derby. Regex code in Jakarta. APR. > Lots of really good and usable code. And we already have other people > recommending additional harmonics to work with us. And some of the > synergies have just amazing potential. > > --- Noel > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Harmony: project purpose
Sorry, the previous email was sent incomplete. I'll try again.. On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 15:45 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 23:10 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Simon Kitching wrote: > > > > > legally isn't it impossible for a GPL'd project and an > > > ASF'd project to *have* "synergies"? > > > > Not at all. Individual authors may contribute their own original works, and > > do not give up that right. Furthermore, we can design architectures and > > interface specifications that permit pluggability while isolating client > > code from the implementation (and license) of the pluggable. Think how JDBC > > or JNDI isolate the code from the service provider classes. That doesn't > > solve distribution issues caused by licensing, but it does address a coding > > issue. > > > > Right now we're putting a structure -- process and community -- in place. > > The goal is to work WITH others. As with all other ASF projects, we'll be > > very careful about provenance when accepting code. > But why bother to "work with others"? Why not just join the existing GNU Classpath and Kaffe projects and work within them? Classpath appears to have no current competitors; it is clearly *the* free java class library implementation. And while the GPL/LGPL may not be the perfect license for every situation it seems perfectly reasonable to me here. Geir indicated in a reply to my earlier posting that there were no specific objections to the Classpath license. Creating a new project whose purpose is to implement the java core libraries surely *must* draw developers away from contributing to GNU Classpath, as well as wasting vasts amount of programmer time (unless major relicensing from GNU Classpath is possible). I still don't understand what benefits might arise from this. The JVM (ie reimplementing what Kaffe does) is a similar situation. What gain is there to create another JVM rather than joining the existing Kaffe project and working within it? Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Harmony: project purpose
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 15:52 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: > Sorry, the previous email was sent incomplete. I'll try again.. > > On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 15:45 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 23:10 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > Simon Kitching wrote: > > > > > > > legally isn't it impossible for a GPL'd project and an > > > > ASF'd project to *have* "synergies"? > > > > > > Not at all. Individual authors may contribute their own original works, > > > and > > > do not give up that right. Furthermore, we can design architectures and > > > interface specifications that permit pluggability while isolating client > > > code from the implementation (and license) of the pluggable. Think how > > > JDBC > > > or JNDI isolate the code from the service provider classes. That doesn't > > > solve distribution issues caused by licensing, but it does address a > > > coding > > > issue. > > > > > > Right now we're putting a structure -- process and community -- in place. > > > The goal is to work WITH others. As with all other ASF projects, we'll be > > > very careful about provenance when accepting code. > > > But why bother to "work with others"? Why not just join the existing GNU > Classpath and Kaffe projects and work within them? > > Classpath appears to have no current competitors; it is clearly *the* > free java class library implementation. And while the GPL/LGPL may not > be the perfect license for every situation it seems perfectly reasonable > to me here. Geir indicated in a reply to my earlier posting that there > were no specific objections to the Classpath license. > > Creating a new project whose purpose is to implement the java core > libraries surely *must* draw developers away from contributing to GNU > Classpath, as well as wasting vasts amount of programmer time (unless > major relicensing from GNU Classpath is possible). I still don't > understand what benefits might arise from this. Sorry, I misrepresented Geir a bit here. Geir *did* indicate a hypothetical situation in which a company could generate a proprietory product based on an APL classlib but not a GPL'd one. The example is fairly unlikely, though. I personally feel that the possible gain by allowing this doesn't make up for the damage likely to be done to GNU Classpath by drawing developers/users from that project. Note that Classpath implements *exactly* the Sun specs. So there isn't much room for proprietory innovation (which is what APL would allow). > > The JVM (ie reimplementing what Kaffe does) is a similar situation. What > gain is there to create another JVM rather than joining the existing > Kaffe project and working within it? Kaffe *is* a little different. I can see companies adapting an existing JVM to perform proprietory stuff, even to implementing proprietory (non-java) languages (or, as in Geir's example, optimising for a particular hardware platform). And an APL'd version would allow developers to learn how a VM implementation works without any worries about future accusations of violating the GPL by copying into a later proprietory project. I still personally would like to see Kaffe complete before a competing project is started, though. Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
> On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Incubator PMC, > > > > I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please > see > > the latest status at: > > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html Could someone please provide information on any patents known to apply to this project? There has been discussion on legal-discuss@apache.org regarding the situation for WS-Security where IBM has granted patent license for the Apache project but not to anyone who modifies the code (modifiers of the code must apply for a patent license separately). The "legal issues" section of the beehive status page does not address patent issues. It would be good to confirm that this situation does not apply to Beehive. Sorry if this has already been discussed... Thanks, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
Yes the current discussion on legal-discuss is wrt wss4j, but the question for beehive was more general: are there any patents that have been explicitly granted for the use of Beehive? For example, have BEA issued any "licenses" to Apache with respect to stuff that Beehive implements? Regards, Simon On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 16:32 -0700, Kenneth Tam wrote: > Beehive doesn't currently have any implementations of the WS-* > standards, including WS-Security -- the intent was to at some point > look to other Apache projects that were implementing those standards > (I don't subscribe to legal-discuss, but I presume the discussion in > question is wrt WSS4J?). > > On 7/14/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dear Incubator PMC, > > > > > > > > I believe Beehive is ready to function as a standalone PMC. Please > > > see > > > > the latest status at: > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beehive.html > > > > Could someone please provide information on any patents known to apply > > to this project? > > > > There has been discussion on legal-discuss@apache.org regarding the > > situation for WS-Security where IBM has granted patent license for the > > Apache project but not to anyone who modifies the code (modifiers of the > > code must apply for a patent license separately). > > > > > > The "legal issues" section of the beehive status page does not address > > patent issues. It would be good to confirm that this situation does not > > apply to Beehive. > > > > Sorry if this has already been discussed... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Simon > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 03:19 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Simon Kitching wrote: > > Could someone please provide information on any patents known to apply > > to this project? > > No, damnit. That is not how patents work! If we are notified of a > patent owned by some entity that has not signed a CLA and contributed > the code, then and ONLY THEN do we spend time analyzing whether the > claims apply to some project of ours. Under no circumstances should > an Apache project go out and search for patents that might apply > based on their own opinion of what is claimed or what we implement. That is not what I meant, as you would see if you read the full original posting. I am concerned about: * Situations like the Web Security project, where the OASIS specification being implemented by Apache explicitly states that there are patents claimed over the specification. * Situations where the original provider of the code explicitly stating that there are patents on the work they are providing, and that they are providing licensing to Apache for the purposes of that project. Discussions regarding the Web Security situation on legal-discuss have revealed that IBM have provided a "patent license" to Apache for this particular project. However, in the opinions of at least one lawyer, any derivative work beyond "minor bugfixes" will require an explicit patent grant from IBM. I've joined that discussion half-way through, so can't say much more until I have time to trawl through the whole thread. However this just doesn't fit with my idea of open source. Given this, it would be nice to know that the Beehive project doesn't have any such situation (ie patent license explicitly granted to Apache but *not* to derivative works) before promotion out of the sandbox occurs. I agree that *looking* for possible patents is unreasonable and actually unwise. Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Beehive into a TLP
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 05:01 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > Discussions regarding the Web Security situation on legal-discuss have > > revealed that IBM have provided a "patent license" to Apache for this > > particular project. However, in the opinions of at least one lawyer, > > any > > derivative work beyond "minor bugfixes" will require an explicit patent > > grant from IBM. I've joined that discussion half-way through, so can't > > say much more until I have time to trawl through the whole thread. > > However this just doesn't fit with my idea of open source. > > That's because the conversation consists of a bunch of nonsensical > questions asked of a lawyer who is trying to figure out what on earth > the person is asking. IBM has a set of licenses to Apache in the > forms of CLAs that apply to any project in which IBM contributes, > a larger number of blanket patent grants to any open source project > (I have no idea if these are included since no actual patents have > been claimed), and a blanket reciprocal patent license that applies > in all other cases. > > Every line of java code is covered by at least two patents and > usually dozens more that may or may not be licensed. Asking if they > exist is a completely irrelevant question. We only care about > patents that are being actively enforced without an RF license. > > > Given this, it would be nice to know that the Beehive project doesn't > > have any such situation (ie patent license explicitly granted to Apache > > but *not* to derivative works) before promotion out of the sandbox > > occurs. > > Derivative works is a definition from COPYRIGHT law. It is totally > irrelevant *unless* the patent license is explicitly limited to > unmodified works. The Apache CLA is a patent license from the > contributor to all recipients of the ASF software -- whether or > not the software changes is irrelevant because the license is > given to the people, not to lines of code. Just for general information, Jeffrey Thompson has given a nice summary of the general situation with WSS4J (and in a very amusing manner). Larry Rosen has followed up with an interesting set of questions phrased in the appropriate legal terms. Larry's questions cover roughly the same ground I was asking, so my questions weren't completely "nonsensical". Clearly the issues about patent grants and derivative works are not clear at the moment. However from what I can see (and from the replies on this thread) this particular discussion does not impact the Beehive project. See the email of Sat, 16 Jul 2005 on legal-discuss with subject "IBM and Apache": http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200507.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SVN repository disappeared?
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 17:04 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > Heidi Buelow wrote: > > Did anyone else notice that the svn repository seems to have > > disappeared? > > > > Yes, something bad seems to have happened to the SVN repos. > I haven't been able to get to svn since sometime between 10 > and 11 this morning (US mountain time). Here's the error I've > been gettin since then: > > $ svn ls http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ > svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/repos/asf/incubator' > svn: > Could not open the requested SVN filesystem Subversion access is working fine for me (both web browsing and command-line). Regards, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for a Champion
Andy Van Den Heuvel wrote: I'm looking for a Champion to help me setup a proposal. The project is a pluggable all-round job scheduling application. Not to be a killjoy but how is it different to Hudson/Jenkins? S Can somebody help me? Thanks for your consideration. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Lucene.Net return to the Incubator
+1 to this proposal - I am happy to see that this worked out and Lucene.Net moves forward! simon On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Troy Howard wrote: >> All, >> >> Please review our proposal for moving the Lucene.Net project back to >> the Incubator. > > I am happy to support this proposal and signed up as a mentor. > > -- > Gianugo Rabellino - gianugo at rabellino dot it > Blog: http://boldlyopen.com > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Lucene.Net for incubation
+1 (not binding) On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: > On 01/26/2011 11:05 PM, Troy Howard wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Since posting the Lucene.Net Incubator proposal announcement on Jan >> 12th, we now have three mentors signed up and would like to call a >> vote to accept Lucene.Net into the Apache Incubator. > > +1 (not binding) > > -- leif > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
Op 2-6-2011 15:04, Greg Stein schreef: On Jun 2, 2011 4:32 AM, "Alexandro Colorado" wrote: ... There is currently a bit rearagement movement toward figuring things out in TDF OOo previously to the OOo annoucement, which happened last month on the marketing list in OOo. http://openoffice.org/projects/marketing/lists/dev/archive/2011-05/ Thanks for the link. ... Just to add clarity by inviting them, you mean that we should join the mailing list for discussing the proposal here. Or should we continue our converstions on each location. Discussion about the Incbator proposal should be done here, please. The audience of that proposal and, ultimately, those who will vote on it are subscribed to this list. Should we add ourselfs as commiters? If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the proposal on the wiki. I had already been so bold as to adding myself to the list, expressing my support to the proposal. I was wondering though. In the OpenOffice.org project, many community members contribute in other ways than committing code, for example by writing or translating documentation, being active in the marketing project, taking part in QA. Some concern has been expressed that, if the meritocratic system in Apache is based on code contribution only, those community members are not able to fully become part of the OpenOffice.org Apache project or the Apache community. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
OpenOffice / OpenOffice.org
Hi Robert, all, I'd like to mention that OpenOffice.org is to be consistently written as such, not omitting the .org, because there are various companies around the world that have preceding rights to the name "Open Office" or similar. Best regards, Simon Op 2-6-2011 15:27, robert_w...@us.ibm.com schreef: "OpenOffice Certified Professional" versus "Foo Certification for OpenOffice". -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
Op 2-6-2011 15:30, Greg Stein schreef: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 09:21, Simon Brouwer wrote: Op 2-6-2011 15:04, Greg Stein schreef: ... If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the proposal on the wiki. I had already been so bold as to adding myself to the list, expressing my support to the proposal. I was wondering though. In the OpenOffice.org project, many community members contribute in other ways than committing code, for example by writing or translating documentation, being active in the marketing project, taking part in QA. Some concern has been expressed that, if the meritocratic system in Apache is based on code contribution only, those community members are not able to fully become part of the OpenOffice.org Apache project or the Apache community. Not a worry. Noirin Plunkett (aka Noirin Shirley) is one of the Directors of Apache, the current Executive Vice President, and held the VP Conferences Committee position for several years. She has not submitted a single line of code that I can recall. Noirin started out at the ASF doing documentation for the HTTP Server project. We also have ASF Members such as Sally Khudairi (Press and Marketing) and Larry Rosen (Legal) who have not committed any code. I would suggest adding a "Non-code Contributors" table into the proposal and putting your name in there. We don't have precedent for it, so may as well start with something. We can always wiggle it around later, as needed. Actually I did contribute a few lines of code many years ago, although most of my contribution is on other things. What would be the advantage to have separate tables for code and non-code contributors? -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
Hi Jim, Op 2-6-2011 16:42, Jim Jagielski schreef: On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Simon Brouwer wrote: I had already been so bold as to adding myself to the list, expressing my support to the proposal. I was wondering though. In the OpenOffice.org project, many community members contribute in other ways than committing code, for example by writing or translating documentation, being active in the marketing project, taking part in QA. Some concern has been expressed that, if the meritocratic system in Apache is based on code contribution only, those community members are not able to fully become part of the OpenOffice.org Apache project or the Apache community. Any one who suggest such a thing simply does not know nor understand the ASF, plain and simple. I think that is exactly the problem for many in the OpenOffice.org community. We didn't know of anything going on between OpenOffice.org and the ASF until Oracle's press release. So we have hardly had the opportunity to get acquainted ;) -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
hat the Incubator project can focus on rebirth and not get swamped in the minutiae of "business as usual". This new OpenOffice/LibreOffice project will also need to be the upstream for many of the non-public projects listed in the proposal (as well as being a downstream for the code from the incubator project when it graduates eventually). That will be fine for some of them, and others will probably need to consider engaging at the new "business-as-usual" project to make things OK. I suggest Apache ask this project to describe itself as "OpenOffice" so that everyone knows both what it is and where to go for the familiar code they are expecting. I realise there are some big social challenges in this proposal and it will take acts of grace from across the divided community, but given the alternative of either trying to invent a completely new set of infrastructure in the Incubator to sustain business-as-usual or using what already works it seems worth asking for conciliatory grace from the members of the two sides of the existing public community. This is purely my own thoughts, and there's no doubt room for improvement although I have run it past a few wise friends before posting it. But I suggest that without this clear demarcation of "new-project" and "business-as-usual-project" it will be very hard to disentangle the two sets of needs and fulfil the worthy objective at the start of the proposal, "Both Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org development community, previously fragmented, would re-unite under ASF to ensure a stable and long term future for OpenOffice.org". S. -- Simon Phipps, http://webmink.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On 3 Jun 2011, at 02:32, Allen Pulsifer wrote: > Hello Simon, > > This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The > LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the > LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contributions and insert > them into an Apache Licensed project without the approval of those > contributors. I believe LibreOffice accepts contributions under any license that is compatible with LGPLv3, including the Apache license. But anyway, contributions can be made to the "New Thing" project and then used by the "Business-As-Usual" project if that's what the contributor wants. > Second, I am strongly against adopting any name other than OpenOffice. The > world is looking for an "official" distribution. If the Apache project does > not adopt the OpenOffice name, then someone else will, and this will confuse > users even more. I am proposing that Apache designate the business-as-usual project as the current "official distribution" on its behalf. There would be far greater confusion if there was /no/ official OpenOffice distribution for many months, which seems a risk at the moment. > For example, even as we speak, a small company in San > Francisco has filed an application with the United States Patent and > Trademark Office to trademark the name "OpenOffice". A copy of this > application is attached in PDF format. This company is the current operator > of http://openoffice.us.com and apparently, they envision that they will > become the exclusive distributor of "OpenOffice". Obviously, that must be > stopped, which I was planning to post on in more detail. The bottom line > however is that the only way to stop that is for a recognized organization > to step up and distribute the "official" OpenOffice distribution. In which case Apache should get the trademark from Oracle as soon as possible, put it to use on a valid distribution as soon as possible, and challenge the application. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
That is what I was suggesting and which Rob claims he won't need because its
so easy.
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 3, 2011 3:23 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>> Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a
>>> release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM
>>> with Symphony. This is not rocket science.
>>
>> I am impressed by your optimism. Let us see how quickly you personally
>> manage a windows build yourself of what ends up inside the initial
>> Apache code-base (incidentally, I'm eagerly awaiting that myself, when
>> do we see it ? only after acceptance of the podling?). We could even
>> have a small race :-)
>>
>
> Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure,
> then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of
> cooperation can occur.
>
> After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide
> the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)...
>
> Just an idea...
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote: > Hi Florian, > > >> I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up >> at Apache or any other entity. >> > > Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any > other foundation. So we are where we are. We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what "open" means. "My way or the highway" talk - from any side - is detestable. ASF has the opportunity to reject the bait to head down the path of ideological conflict, choose a conciliatory path that respects the existing community and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being transferred) for everyone's good. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense > all > of the contributions it has received. As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license agreement, so is unable to relicense the last 8 months of work under any license incompatible with the ones used by those contributions. S.
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very
> similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these
> two threads together.
> >
>
> Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to:
>
> 1. The podling goes along as suggested.
> 2. The TDF continues business as usual.
>
That's so far from being a valid interpretation of my proposal I almost
don't know where to begin.
What I am saying is that ASF is being entrusted with something it has never
had before; a consumer brand of inestimable value, combined with an
enormous, non-technical end-user community. OpenOffice.org is probably the
most recognised open source consumer brand after Linux. Servicing that
responsibility is a massive task. I've seen a few e-mails with people with
hand-waving it away ("how hard can it be?" etc) but those of us with
experience of OpenOffice know that it's daunting.
If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am not),
I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the
enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and not
from an undefined point in the future after which Apache has a serious
reputational problem with that end-user community and a serious enforcement
problem with that trademark.
Since I did not see any hint of this in the proposal, my suggestion for how
to deal with it from day one is to explore co-operation with LibreOffice,
who have the build infrastructure, distribution infrastructure, translation
and localisation infrastructure and indeed marketing infrastructure already
in place, following eight months of hard work on their part. Ask them if
they would be willing to create OpenOffice.org-the-binary-download for you.
Ask them to host that binary download. Then as the Apache project falls into
place, continue to collaborate for the good of the open source community.
> color me confused: first Simon slams the ASF for not actively
> engaging TDF and others (although we, of course, did) but now
> his suggestion is to basically ignore each other...
>
Actually I thought my whole e-mail was pretty reasonable and in fact a call
for ASF and TDF /not/ to ignore each other. But apparently my lame attempts
to talk of collaboration and conciliation are "slamming" and the people who
are flinging mud at TDF are just fine and get no rebuke from the ASF
President. I must have done a terrible writing job...
S.
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > Ahhh... Yes I see something missing from Simons mail here. I assumed that > the LibreOffice distribution would gradually migrate to using the core > components proposed here (Apache ODFSuite as Simin called it) and thus > collaboration on those components would also migrate here. > Yes, that's exactly what I assumed would happen in time. But my e-mail was already TL;DR :-) > If I understand correctly the donations from Oracle are not going to enable > us to build an appropriately licenced end user product without significant > work. Furthermore, the proposal and various press releases seem to indicate > that A key focus of this project will be componentisation of the code base > making it easier to reuse. > That is also my understanding. That's also why it's so important to have a plan for how to sustain the end-user binary at least at a no-worse-than-now level while the Apache project works out what has to go, what can stay, what needs rewriting and so on. I may be being naive, I prefer to think I'm an optimist. > Me too! S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented just for showing up. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Cmon Joe, Simon's PoV has been clear from his tweets, > unless he has changed his mind... If I am mis-representing > his stance, Simon's a big boy and can tell me where I'm > wrong and I'll admit I was wrong. Does he say that *both* > TDF and the ASF has the opportunity? No, just the ASF. > > Maybe that is a nit, but of such nits confusion arises. > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > > > Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled > > out his position. As I read it, we could license > > the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation > > for, as Simon put it, "business as usual" distributions. > > If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event > > upon which that license terminates, and the "new" > > stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code > > under the mark. > > > > > > > > - Original Message > >> From: Jim Jagielski > >> To: general@incubator.apache.org > >> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM > >> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the > > Community? > >> > >> > >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Florian, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be > set-up > >>>>> at Apache or any other entity. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP > to any > >>>> other foundation. So we are where we are. > >>> > >>> We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to > >> collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what "open" means. "My way > or the > >> highway" talk - from any side - is detestable. ASF has the opportunity > to > >> reject the bait to head down the path of ideological conflict, choose a > >> conciliatory path that respects the existing community and especially > to use > >> the trademark (which is the only actual asset being transferred) for > everyone's > >> good. > >>> > >> > >> Let's be honest: by "collaborate" you mean have the ASF simply > >> xfer the code and the trademark to TDF and walk away... At least, > >> that is the strong impression you give. Please correct me if I'm > >> wrong. > >> > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman > wrote: > > > >> Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense > >> all > >> of the contributions it has received. > > > > As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source > > licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license > > agreement, so is unable to relicense the last 8 months of work under any > > license incompatible with the ones used by those contributions. > > Unable is a strong word. I given that we are talking about > historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be > possible to identify and reach out to those who made these > contributions. These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights. > > In fact, these people can readily add themselves to the wiki right now > and send in an ICLA and commit these changes themselves once the > project arrives here; at which point the TDF has a clean base upon > which to build. > Unable is the correct word. /TDF/ is unable to to relicense. If all those individuals choose to commit changes at ASF they can naturally do so, but that wasn't how I understood Noel's question. S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept > the podling. > > These are decisions the podling should be making. > They can only make those decisions if they know they have to make them. I think it's very material to your vote whether the proposers have in fact recognised the importance of the consumer brand and the non-technical end-user community. I strongly suggest Apache take this seriously and not surrender to hand-waving answers about it. S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for collaboration to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim while your project sorts itself out. S.
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin < robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz > wrote: > > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting: > >> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the > > related communities. > >> > >> If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that > >> explained in the proposal before we vote on it. > > > > +1 (not binding) > > The ASF uses the Apache License. Some people will only contribute to > projects under a copyleft license. Arguments about these lines have - > historically - produce a lot of flames but little useful illumination. > (So I'd like to avoid another round ;-) > > What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an > upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community > spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would > definitely like to see the proposal explain whether this would be > possible and practical. > More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating ideological division as a given... S.
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > > > If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am > not), > > I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the > > enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and > not > > from an undefined point in the future after which Apache has a serious > > reputational problem with that end-user community and a serious > enforcement > > problem with that trademark. > > As we all want to know... we are not idiots. > I must have missed the e-mails asking about it. Can you give me pointers please? S.
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > When I read Jim's email, I took it to mean your tweets[1]. Not your > emails to this list. Greg: I am being told by Sam Ruby to not talk about these topics so I will not respond apart from to acknowledge I am not ignoring you. S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:50 PM, wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 02:33:21 PM: > > > > > Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for > collaboration > > to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim > while > > your project sorts itself out. > > > > > Can you state this in the form of a collaborative activity? I'm being > neutral as to the intent or particulars on the wiki. I'm noting the kinds > of activities. In the end the nature of the activity, with respect to the > license and ASF policy, not the intent of the collaboration, is what will > determine whether it is permissible. > > For example, mixing GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 with the intent of feeding > starving children is not permissible, but providing a library that Wall > Street tycoons can use to design butterscotch pudding swimming pools is > permissible. Saying "collaboration...to protect the OpenOffice consumer" > is not really sufficient. > > I made fairly detailed proposals on another thread which I was summarising with that phrase. S.
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> >> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this >> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating >> ideological division as a given... >> > > Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... that > *is* a given. If people are wondering if we would change our license > or even allow dual-licensing, then that is not going to happen. > > Not anything in particular about OOo. It's just the fact. I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer deliverable from Day One. That will inevitably involve a mix of licenses as the code you're receiving from Oracle has a mix of licenses, so it's not obvious to me why licensing is relevant *on day one*. > Let's be honest: by "collaborate" you mean have the ASF simply > xfer the code and the trademark to TDF and walk away... At least, > that is the strong impression you give. Please correct me if I'm > wrong. No, not at all. I'm suggesting ASF ask LibreOffice to help it out of a bind temporarily. > And I offer a personal apology to Simon... Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the start of the week on offended you. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote: > > Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM: > > > >> > >> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code > >> from ASF into their products. > >> > > > > This is true, but would you call that collaboration? > > ABSOLUTELY. > > Q: "How does the TDF work with the ASF?" > A: "Snarf our code at will." > :-) Actually I am pretty sure there will be upstream code from TDF. Maybe not everything, but they are good people with a heart for OpenOffice. S.
Re: OpenOffice - Wiki - Required Resources - Subversion vs. Mercurial vs. Git
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > >> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main > >> code and it didn't work well for a project this size. > > > > Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to > the > > problems you experienced with Subversion. Our infrastructure team, > working > > closely over the years with the Subversion team, has done wonders to get > > Subversion working for the ASF. We've often been their canary in the > coal > > mine. :-) > > Right. I know that the Apache Subversion team would love to hear about > any problems. > > As Noel mentions, the ASF repository is quite huge. We're over 1.1 > million revisions, containing a couple hundred projects and millions > and millions of lines of code. We've got international replication, > backups, security, awesome admins, and a development team to keep it > all running smoothly. > > I can understand people desiring the Git style of workflow, but that > is different from a problem inherent to Subversion itself. So... if > you guys *did* have issues with the tool, then we'd really like to > know! > > "I can fix it... my dad's got an awesome set of tools..." > Just to drag the point here from the other thread where it was made, the problem is less the size of the code (although it is enormous and will make a great stress test for the SVN team :-) ) and more the need for frequent bi-directional merges between the different platforms where OOo is semi-independently implemented. The nature of the project makes a DVCS much more suitable which is why we switched to Mercurial and not Subversion originally - Subversion was very popular for other projects at Sun. S.
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of > telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's > a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer > deliverable from Day One. > > Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an > excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and > TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution. > Didn't I suggest that first? :-) > > One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF > is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge* > and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience. > I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to. > I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there yet. There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, especially on Day One. I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to confidently +1 it. S.
Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> > >>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of > >> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe > there's > >> a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer > >> deliverable from Day One. > >> > >> Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an > >> excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and > >> TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution. > >> > > > > Didn't I suggest that first? :-) > > I took your "business as usual" meaning that TDF simply > continued doing their dev/build/release. My point, and > maybe you meant it as well, is that they also take on > the build/release of OOo on our behalf. > In fact, on Day One of the podling, you could even redirect download.openoffice.org to download.libreoffice.org temporarily if they would agree to include suitable explanatory information. Anything to make sure the consumer downloads (a) are there and (b) are sustained. > > > > > I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there > yet. > > There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its > > inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, especially > on > > Day One. I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to > > confidently +1 it. > > > > Not strictly replying to the above point, but no proposal is > expected to have every possible contingency planned... That > is so the podling has the flexibility to determine what needs > to be done. TrafficServer, for example, noted the TM issue but > the proposal didn't (iirc) determine *what* to do; subversion > and spamassissin also had to worry about continuation of code > and releases, but again, the proposal didn't define a specific > course of action. The intent is to start a podling so *it* can > work those issues, handle pre-existing commitments, etc... > Again, completely understood and very reasonable. I'm just suggesting gaining assurance that the magnitude of servicing the consumer brand and binary is understood and not just dismissed as SMOP. As of right now the text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that openoffice.orgresolve to a working and current site without interruption that it deserves a mention (preferably a plan - yes, unusual for an incubator proposal) too. S.
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
On 3 Jun 2011, at 21:14, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Posts such as: > > > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm > > certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division > as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive > stance. > > It's a shame. Looks like a journalist writing a story about LO's 3.4 releaser to me. They like to stir, you know :-) S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh wrote: > > > > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could > > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open > > and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to > > the community to add such a tone to the proposal. > > > > What do you think? > > The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it! > What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be very reticent indeed about editing. S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh > wrote: > >> > > >> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could > >> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open > >> > and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to > >> > the community to add such a tone to the proposal. > >> > > >> > What do you think? > >> > >> The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason. Go for it! > > > > What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be > very > > reticent indeed about editing. > > Rules? :-) > > From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html : > > "The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this > proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and > the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list." > Got any special rules for where the incoming community is already divided? :-) > As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be > no interference. If it turns out that there are groups with multiple > visions, we can split this page into separate proposals. Defacement > of the proposal will be quickly reverted. > So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to edit and not just Apache members or the project's proposers. S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
I suggest: "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual licensing choices. There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of the podlet." S.
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Given the generally positive response I've edited that text into the wiki. S. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > Excellent. Thanks, Simon! > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps wrote: > > I suggest: > > > > "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org > > community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on > the > > GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We > > will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so > that > > the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by > > LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be > > received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual > > licensing choices. > > > > There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly > > sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared > > build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of > > build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream > > requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life > of > > the podlet." > > > > S. > > > > ----- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Discussion with TDF/LO people (was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it? > > Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone associated with this proposal on the LibreOffice and Document Foundation lists I subscribe to. I heard about it through personal e-mails and then the press. Did I miss the e-mails too? S.
Re: Discussion with TDF/LO people (was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
Sorry, hit send too soon. On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > Now... with that said. Consider a typical person from the ASF who > might want to do that. Say.. like myself. I don't know what list to > subscribe to. (name only one!) ... If somebody can say what list that > ASF people could subscribe to, then something like this could happen. > TDF/LO's mailing lists are listed here: http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists I subscribe to Announce and Steering-Discuss - I suggest the latter would be a good place to go say hi and offer to be helpful. S.
Re: Discussion with TDF/LO people (was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:23, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > >> (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it? > > > > Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone associated with this > > proposal on the LibreOffice and Document Foundation lists I subscribe to. > I > > heard about it through personal e-mails and then the press. Did I miss > the > > e-mails too? > > Jim sent something; maybe that was just to a few individuals? (Italo > and Louis, at least) I thought something had gone out since people > have been showing up. > Must've been private. Personally I think it would be great for someone to show up on both the openoffice.org and Document Foundation mailing lists and say "hey, I know you've felt the ground rumbling, are there any questions I can help with". But maybe I'm naive :-) S.
Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
Rob - their mailing list is over at steering-disc...@documentfoundation.org, details here: http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists S. On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:09 AM, wrote: > If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get > such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following > questions. This would help us understand what room there is for > negotiation and what is not worth discussing at all. > > For "willing to consider it", I mean in the context of a negotiation where > there is some give and take. I'm not asking if you're willing to do this > for nothing. I just want to understand what are the deal breakers and > where we should be focusing discussions. > > I'm not interested in debating these questions in this thread, aside from > clarifications. We're debating these issues in other threads. I'm just > trying to see if we can agree on which of these directions, if any, is > likely to be fruitful and which ones, if any, are fundamentally impossible > for TDF/LO. > > I think we've given straightforward answers on where ASF is flexible and > where it cannot budge. I'd welcome similar clarity from TDF/LO, in the > spirit of moving forward these discussions. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > > > > 1) Require Apache 2.0 licence for future contributions to LO, possibly in > addition with other compatible licenses. > > a) Not willing to consider it > > b) Willing to consider it > > > 2) Encourage and facilitate TDF members signing an Apache CLA on their > past LO contributions > > a) Not willing to consider it > > b) Willing to consider it > > > 3) Encourage and facilitate TDF members contributing their work to both > Apache and TDF under respective licenses > > a) Not willing to consider it > > b) Willing to consider it > > > 4) Join Apache and do the core development work there, with LibreOffice > being a downstream consumer of the core, collaborating closely with Apache > via patches, defect reports, etc. > > a) Not willing to consider it > > b) Willing to consider it > > > 5) Join Apache and consolidate all development there, under the name > OpenOffice > > a) Not willing to consider it > > b) Willing to consider it > > > 6) Join Apache and consolidate all development there, under the name > LibreOffice. > > a) Not willing to consider it > > b) Willing to consider it > > > 7) Join Apache and consolidate all development there, under the name ODF > Suite. > > a) Not willing to consider it > > b) Willing to consider it > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Discussion with TDF/LO people (was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
I can confirm I just saw your "Hello" message go out - awesome! S. On 4 Jun 2011, at 01:21, Greg Stein wrote: > I've now subscribed to libreoffice@, steering-discuss@, and discuss@. > I dropped a "hello" email to the lists, and am going into lurk mode > :-) > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:45, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: >> Here are the global lists: >> < http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists> >> >> I suggest the steering-disc...@documentationfoundation.org or, if you find >> that too forward (or if posting is restricted), just >> disc...@documentfoundation.org for starters. >> >> - Dennis >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] >> < >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktimu0roezdocxkgn_9dacyf6qej...@mail.gmail.com%3e> >> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 16:08 >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Discussion with TDF/LO people (was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator >> Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO) >> >> [ ... ] >> >> Now... with that said. Consider a typical person from the ASF who might want >> to do that. Say.. like myself. I don't know what list to subscribe to. (name >> only one!) ... If somebody can say what list that ASF people could subscribe >> to, then something like this could happen. >> >> [ ... ] >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: > However I > will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for > advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version > 2.0 is an appropriate choice: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm this. S.
Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann > wrote: >> Excuse me for interrupting ... >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, wrote: >> >>> LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. >> >> I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither >> >>http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/ >> >> nor >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/license.html >> >> are mentioning the MPL. What's right? >> > > I believe that during the talks between Robert and LibreOffice, > LibreOffice asked to have the freed OpenOffice relicensed to LGPLv3/MPL, > so that the wrongs are fixed and everyone is happy. > But Robert got confused and says above that LibreOffice is already > licensed under the LGPLv3/MPL. I believe it's a bit more complex than that. The following is my understanding of the history and situation, I'd welcome corrections where I have misunderstood or misremembered or my summary omits key details. IBM has been trying for years to get the OOo code put back under a permissive license. It used to be under SISSL (a now-deprecated permissive open source license) and LGPLv2, and in those days IBM was free to build Symphony without any reference to OOo. Its worth noting that they never contributed any code at all to the community when OOo was under that permissive license. Once OOo licensing was updated to LGPLv3 only, IBM could no longer operate in this way. There were extensive negotiations, first on a semi-open community basis and then between Sun and IBM. The result was apparently a private licensing arrangement. Under that arrangement, IBM was again able to use the OOo code. Under this arrangement, they also contributed very little code (although at least a bit). In discussions with community members before the fork, IBMs representatives indicated that if the code project was licensed under a weak copyleft license like MPL or CDDL, they would be able and willing to both use it and work within the community. In order to ensure IBM would be able to participate in LibreOffice in the event the rest of the code was relicensed in a way they could accept, the community there has ensured that contributions have been made under both MPL and LGPLv3. Since the inbound code LibreOffice uses is currently mainly under LGPLv3, LibreOffice is licensed under LGPLv3 outbound at present even though inbound new contributions are under both licenses. This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went to a fair bit of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on Rob's blog and elsewhere. Hope that helps, S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the > statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and > extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other > situations. I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: >>> However I >>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for >>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version >>> 2.0 is an appropriate choice: >>> >>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html >> >> Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to code >> expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for >> example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm >> this. > > I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the > gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase "widespread use of > the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the > Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice" Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent. S. >
Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >>>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: >>>>> However I >>>>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for >>>>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version >>>>> 2.0 is an appropriate choice: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html >>>> >>>> Have you checked that with the FSF, Sam? That recommendation applies to >>>> code >>>> expected to have a wide and diverse range of derivatives (libraries for >>>> example). Comments by FSF board member Bradley Kuhn on Rob's blog confirm >>>> this. >>> >>> I'm actually directly quoting, and citing, the FSF. Search the >>> gnu.org page referenced above for the very phrase "widespread use of >>> the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the >>> Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice" >> >> Yes, yes, of course, I'm not as stupid as you all seem to think you know. >> But I assert your citation is a misinterpretation of their intent. > > Please don't put words in my mouth. I've not and I won't. Please chill. > > I encourage everybody to read the full citation, in its original context. That's not denying my assertion. I also encourage people to read FSF Board member Bradley Kuhn's clarifications: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18558 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-18807 S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> >>>> >>> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who >>> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made >>> available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the >>> statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and >>> extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other >>> situations. >> >> I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer >> destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer >> focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. >> > > Agreed, but that assumes that LO is "just" a build/deliverables/consumer > focused entity, and doesn't have a developer interest as well. As long > as they still do, then licensing is important. That's not my intent. Rather, I have tried to capture in writing the things I think it's easy to agree about and leave unsaid the things it is certain will cause an argument. Indeed, I believe that's close to the definition of consensus. But I do believe the developer intent of TDF to be profoundly different from the general developer ethos of ASF, so even in those contentious areas where ideology will come into play I am still optimistic there are ways to collaborate if we have the will to make it happen. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recuse as mentor?
I really can't see that as necessary Jim. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]
Hi Shane, Op 5-6-2011 6:11, Shane Curcuru schreef: Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of "OpenOffice.org" or the logo or other related marks in other countries besides the US? The name "Open Office" has been registered in the Benelux by the Dutch company Open Office Automatisering since before OpenOffice.org was announced, see http://www.openoffice.nl/merkenregistratie Because of this and similar cases we need taking care to not omit the ".org" when indicating the project or the product OpenOffice.org. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]
I'm aware that Sun successfully challenged a problematic third party
registration in Brazil just as the acquisition was going through. It may be
worth early investigation in case the registration on Sun's behalf was not
then completed; OOo had serious issues in Brazil over many years because of
it.
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 5, 2011 12:53 PM, "Shane Curcuru" wrote:
> Sophie Gautier wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> On 05/06/2011 10:06, Julien Vermillard wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcuru
>>> wrote:
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
...snip...
>
> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
...snip...
The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark
along with
a specific list of source code files.
I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the
ASF
yet (i.e. legal documents officially transferring ownership within
the USPTO
here in the US).
As best I understand, the ASF does not currently own the trademark,
but the
intent of both Oracle and the ASF is that the trademark will be
transferred
to the ASF once the appropriate legal paperwork is completed. I
presume,
and will follow up, to ensure this includes the graphical logo with the
seagulls.
Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of
"OpenOffice.org" or
the logo or other related marks in other countries besides the US?
- Shane Curcuru
VP, Brand Management, The Apache Software Foundation
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
For those interested:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78581289
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77021413
>>> Hi
>>> I found it in the E.U. database, look like it's registered (with the
>>> logo).
>>> You can check there searching "openoffice" (can't paste result url..) :
>>>
>>> http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/basicSearch.html
>>>
>>> http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic
>>
>> I've got the BOPI for France if you're interested in.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Sophie
>
> Yes, please. If anyone has direct links to specific registration
> numbers and where they're held of either "OpenOffice.org" (which we're
> talking about here) or "Open Office" (which some other organizations
> have in at least Europe) they'd be very helpful. I posted a link to the
> Benelux registration of "Open Office" by that company in the Netherlands.
>
> The best place to send those is tradema...@apache.org, a privately
> archived list where we organize trademark policy for the ASF.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Shane
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> >>> I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on >>> this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing >>> in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it >>> was Saturday :-) >> >> Agreed, just some quick thoughts... >> >>> What I am still waiting to hear on are: >>> 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under >>> the Apache License. >> >> List published by Sam, and Christian suggests this reflects the OOo repo... >> http://people.apache.org/~rubys/openoffice.files.txt >> Actually tearing into that repo for files differently-copyrighted might >> be a task for RAT :) > > I doubt that you'll find anything "differently-copyrighted" in that > list. My understanding is that Oracle created the list with something > like "grep '(C) Oracle'" :-) > > I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that > are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are > they, and how much of a problem will that be? I've been discussing this privately with some folk, and while we've not done an exhaustive analysis between us we're fairly sure that list doesn't include any of the (numerous) work-in-progress branches that are not merged into the actual release. Is it crucial to get a comprehensive list before the podlet is established, or can ASF still sort this out with Oracle in incubation? S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > No, we don't need the comprehensive list to start. > OK, that's good. It will be worth gathering a group of experts to build a comprehensive view. I suggest that include LibreOffice developers too. > After all that, then we can go back to Oracle and make specific > requests for the branches where Oracle owns the copyright. I believe > Andrew already stated that moving over the core is primary, and then > we can mop up later with extensions and whatnot. > While the extensions in particular are a concern (plenty of us will be horrified to lose the Presenter Console from Impress for example), it's also important to get the work that was in progress internal to Sun on core code features when the project was frozen - i.e., code that had not yet made it to open source but was expected to do so. Cheers, S.
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile < ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Concerning the extensions, by reading the file Sam Ruby uploaded, the > following > extensions are in the grant: > > > Thanks, I'd missed those. Reassuring :-) > > I don't see the MySQL Connector module there > http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/file/DEV300_m106/mysqlc > > Another important thing missing are the default images: > http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/file/DEV300_m106/default_images > Both worth pursuing. Anyone know if there's a place to start a list? I'm not from round these parts... > > And the whole localization: > http://hg.services.openoffice.org/master_l10n/DEV300/ > http://hg.services.openoffice.org/master_l10n/OOO340/ > That's very concerning, as perhaps the chief glory of OO.o is the astounding localisation work. > > And there is no information about the future of all the open CWS. > This also needs flagging as these are where all the upcoming innovations would be located. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef: Hi Ralph, Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers: On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the libreoffice lists at this point. What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. Not a blocker for starting incubation. IOW we don't ask for this level of detail from other podlings. It might be a blocker for my vote. You are, of course, free to vote differently. This is a much larger project than usually enters the incubator. I'm worried that if the project has too much of this kind of work to deal with it will kill the community. If I understand you correctly, your question is if the supplied set of source files is missing something to make this a working project. As stated earlier, the list of source files provided look like a 1:1 copy from the mercurial repository available at OpenOffice.org. I was looking at that, but I have the impression that the source code for a number of "external" projects is not present in the mercurial checkout and still has to be retrieved as part of the building process. There are makefiles, patches etc., but no source code worth mentioning, in subdirectories stlport, openssl, hunspell, libxslt... It might be all of these: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries/ -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > > It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to > LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't > IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in > existence? > I am pretty sure you will not get a satisfactory answer to that question here as the reply is complex and unappealing. I strongly suggest dropping the line of attack, although of course I am a guest to so have none of the authority Sam Ruby would wield, despite the omniscience Rob claims I have :-) Cheers S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > > I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then try > to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers have a vision > for where they want to go, even though they may be starting from the same > place. > I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been waiting to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has been strong on long-term abstract vision (clearly more omniscient than me), but any time specifics of what (& how) is going to happen in the immediate future in terms of maintaining the important consumer end-user presence OpenOffice.org delivers, things get pretty fuzzy and hand-wavey. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > On 6/5/11 7:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall> >wrote: >> >> I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then >>> try >>> to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers have a vision >>> for where they want to go, even though they may be starting from the same >>> place. >>> >>> I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been >> waiting >> to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has been strong on >> long-term abstract vision (clearly more omniscient than me), but any time >> specifics of what (& how) is going to happen in the immediate future in >> terms of maintaining the important consumer end-user presence >> OpenOffice.org >> delivers, things get pretty fuzzy and hand-wavey. >> > > Even if the answer is, "We don't have a short-term plan for all of the > consumers." I don't really see that as some smoking gun that says they can't > enter incubation. Granted, it would be nice if the brand weren't hurt in the > process, but at the same time I don't see how we can hold an incubator > project accountable for all of that...even if it is their goal to do so. > I actually agree, but as I say so far I have not seen even that as a statement. S.
Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope > Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable > unless the pending application is turned down. > Actually that trademark application is of deep concern to the community and it would be highly desirable for Apache to either ask Oracle to challenge it or to rapidly transfer the trademarks from Oracle and mount a challenge. S.
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote: > > I would recommend altering the proposal. "We have the set of files > > specified in the software grant. During incubation, we will seek a > > grant to the following groups of code: " > > > Done. > Beat me to it :-) We still need to get that list fleshed out though, so it probably out to have its own wiki page somewhere, no? S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > > The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know a few > OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that > extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as that'll > confuse end-users. > I still think that's open for discussion. To my eyes it still makes a lot of sense to have Apache host the parts IBM (and maybe others, although their existence is exaggerated) need for their proprietary products, and then have TDF maintain a consumer end-user deliverable downstream as well. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:37 AM, wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM: > > > From: Simon Phipps > > I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been > waiting > > to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has been strong on > > long-term abstract vision (clearly more omniscient than me), but any > time > > specifics of what (& how) is going to happen in the immediate future in > > terms of maintaining the important consumer end-user presence > OpenOffice.org > > delivers, things get pretty fuzzy and hand-wavey. > > > > Perhaps you missed it in the thread on end-users. Here is a link: > > http://markmail.org/message/ge3jom3px5dviils > > I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue creating, building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all the locales it is today, along with an estimate for the IPMT of how big the task is, whether it's adequately staffed, what infrastructure it needs and so on. Your focus on the ODF market is laudable and you know I've been supporting similar aims for even longer than you have. But my big concern remains making sure that throughout 2011 there's a fresh, live consumer binary being produced to keep the enormous existing user-base satisfied. S.
Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:08 AM, wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM: > > > > > > > > The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know > a few > > > OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that > > > extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as > that'll > > > confuse end-users. > > > > > > > I still think that's open for discussion. To my eyes it still makes a > lot of > > sense to have Apache host the parts IBM (and maybe others, although > their > > existence is exaggerated) need for their proprietary products, and then > have > > TDF maintain a consumer end-user deliverable downstream as well. > > > > I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream deliverable. > It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It > would be great if a private company does this. It would be good of a > government wants to do this. It would be great if multiple parties wanted > to do this together. It would be great it multiple parties wanted to do > this separately. > > But I am very very very concerned that this conversation is starting to > cross over into a "division of market" conversation, which has stiff > penalties under US and international competition law. Open source work, > like standards, is work done voluntarily among competitors in the market. > There are some things we must not talk about, especially things where > competitors may be seen as arranging to reduce competition. We need to > steer the conversation far from this. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories > > We are discussing how the OpenOffice.org community (which as has been explained has two different open source projects in addition to a variety of downstream commercial consumers of the open source code) could structure its operations. S.
Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 09:13:24 PM: > > > > > > > I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream > deliverable. > > > It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It > > > would be great if a private company does this. It would be good of a > > > government wants to do this. It would be great if multiple parties > wanted > > > to do this together. It would be great it multiple parties wanted to > do > > > this separately. > > > > > > But I am very very very concerned that this conversation is starting > to > > > cross over into a "division of market" conversation, which has stiff > > > penalties under US and international competition law. Open source > work, > > > like standards, is work done voluntarily among competitors in the > market. > > > There are some things we must not talk about, especially things where > > > competitors may be seen as arranging to reduce competition. We need > to > > > steer the conversation far from this. > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories > > > > > > > > We are discussing how the OpenOffice.org community (which as has been > > explained has two different open source projects in addition to a > variety of > > downstream commercial consumers of the open source code) could structure > its > > operations. > > > > Simon, in several posts I heard you suggest what sounded to me like a > compromise that would reserve end user supported versions for TDF/LO, > while Apache would exclude itself from that market and pursue other > options. You put that into the wiki at one point, using the workd > "complementary" to describe the division. You've suggested that Apache not > try to get involved in end-user software, especially where it would > compete with TDF/LO. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. But if you > are suggesting anything like that, I think that is crossing the line. > > "Exclude itself from the market" is extraordinary language to use Rob. You seem to view LibreOffice as a "competitor", as if this were competition between IBM and Novell or something. It is not - it is the OpenOffice.Org community in exile, a stakeholder in the future of the project, a resource within the community. The "art of the possible" here is about exploring ways to make things work for the open source community, nothing to do with competitors in markets. This is not a standards community, nor is it a 501(c)6 like Eclipse. By the way, I don't work for Sun any more. S.
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:24 AM, wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM: > > => > > > I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue > creating, > > building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all > the > > locales it is today, along with an estimate for the IPMT of how big the > task > > is, whether it's adequately staffed, what infrastructure it needs and so > > on. > > > > Your focus on the ODF market is laudable and you know I've been > supporting > > similar aims for even longer than you have. But my big concern remains > > making sure that throughout 2011 there's a fresh, live consumer binary > being > > produced to keep the enormous existing user-base satisfied. > > > > No Simon, it was not in the email. I didn't think it was necessary to > repeat what is already in the very first paragraph of the proposal on the > wiki: > > > "OpenOffice.org is comprised of (6) personal productivity applications: > word processor, spreadsheet, presentation graphics, drawing, equation > editor, and database. OpenOffice.org supports Windows, Solaris, Linux and > Macintosh operation systems. OpenOffice.org is localized, supporting over > 110 languages worldwide. " > > I don't see a problem here. There are competitors in this market that > release only every three years. They seem to have users. There are some > that release updates every quarter. They have users as well. And some do > something in the middle. They have users as well. So there is no "one > true answer" here. > > The OOo releases have recently been like: > > 3.0 Oct 2008 > 3.1 May 2009 > 3.2 Feb 2010 > 3.3 Jan 2011 > > So the most recent interval was a one year cycle between releases. Even > with the overhead and resulting downtime of moving our tent to Apache, I > don't see why we couldn't aim for a stable 3.4 in Q1 2012 or earlier and > not frustrate customer expectations.Not saying we couldn't do > something more aggressive than that. I'm all in favor of getting to a > more steady heart beat, say quarterly betas or something like that. > Release early and often. But the details are for the project to work out. > The release cadence for point releases is more frequent than that. S.
Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?
I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the LibreOffice part of the OOo community right from the start. S. On Jun 6, 2011 2:56 AM, wrote:
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Christian Lippka schreef: > Am 06.06.2011 00:28, schrieb Simon Brouwer: >> Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef: >>> Hi Ralph, >>> >>> Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers: >>>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>>>>> I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the >>>>>> traffic >>>>>> on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now >>>>>> focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that >>>>>> is just >>>>>> because it was Saturday :-) >>>>> Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the >>>>> libreoffice >>>>> lists at this point. >>>>> >>>>>> What I am still waiting to hear on are: >>>>>> 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give >>>>>> to us >>>>>> under the Apache License. >>>>> Not a blocker for starting incubation. IOW we don't ask for this >>>>> level of >>>>> detail from other podlings. >>>> It might be a blocker for my vote. You are, of course, free to vote >>>> differently. This is a much larger project than usually enters the >>>> incubator. I'm worried that if the project has too much of this >>>> kind of work to deal with it will kill the community. >>> If I understand you correctly, your question is if the supplied set >>> of source files is missing something to >>> make this a working project. >>> >>> As stated earlier, the list of source files provided look like a 1:1 >>> copy from the mercurial >>> repository available at OpenOffice.org. >> >> I was looking at that, but I have the impression that the source code >> for a number of "external" projects is not present in the mercurial >> checkout and still has to be retrieved as part of the building >> process. There are makefiles, patches etc., but no source code worth >> mentioning, in subdirectories stlport, openssl, hunspell, libxslt... >> >> It might be all of these: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries/ > Yes and no. Usually external project would be build in modules like > stlport, openssl etc. The archives with the sources would be in the > above url. But what is missing > are the patches to those external source archives. OK, so these patches should be added to the software grant, hardly a problem I should think. But a practical matter is whether ASF can provide a similar repository of "external project" archives, which much simplifies the build process, or is the policy not to distribute any source under non-ASL licenses strictly maintained? -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote: > > > >>> I would recommend altering the proposal. "We have the set of files > >>> specified in the software grant. During incubation, we will seek a > >>> grant to the following groups of code: " > >> > >> > >> Done. > >> > > > > Beat me to it :-) We still need to get that list fleshed out though, so > it > > probably out to have its own wiki page somewhere, no? > > Simon, just a procedural pointL it's not quite kosher for just anyone > to change an ASF podling proposal. In general, the sponsor, champion > and initial submitters have that authority (after all, it is *their* > proposal). People are encouraged to add themselves as contributors, > of course, but substantial changes to the actual proposal are not, > in general, accepted. > > Sorry Jim - I actually asked Sam and others about this earlier[1] and he told me to go right ahead[2][3]. Clearly I was right to be reticent[1] and I'll be sure not to consider it again. S. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktikk61x_bhdb+csp3um9x3xbmgm...@mail.gmail.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTimMWBNVpFVwFk8cHcQ_cZ=zqL=b...@mail.gmail.com%3E [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktinyi_mcbmxyj2ao-un6uvtzdnc...@mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Like most aspects of Apache, it's easier to ask for forgiveness > > than to seek permission, epecially when we don't all agree on > the necessity of it ;-). > > Given I had actually asked for and received permission from the proposal mentor I thought most likely to object, I'm actually pretty pissed and alienated to be told off for contributing. Going out for sushi to cool off. S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote: > > Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand > contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other > things. > > Carrots and sticks. Is Apache historically flexible in this area? I had the impression the trademark policy was usually strictly applied and narrowly interpreted. S.
Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote: > > > Let's say we persuaded the good guys at Apache that this is a ploy to > > manipulate them and they reject the code. Where then will it go? If > > conspiracy is right it definitely won't be to TDF and it could be to > > somewhere a lot more damaging to TDF than the ASF. > 100% agreed. Once this project is approved, it will be much easier to work out ideal compromises together too. S.
OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
My apologies if this proposal is out of place on either list, but I think it's worth thinking about early. Obviously I speak for neither Apache nor TDF but I have a deep concern for OpenOffice.org and am very keen to see the community healed. Given that: * both LibreOffice (October, Paris) and Apache (November, Vancouver) have conferences in the second half of the year, * between them cover both Europe and North America, * plenty of people will be travelling anyway to attend them, * it's much easier to co-operate with people you've met I would like to suggest to both TDF and Apache that they host an "OpenOffice.org Unity Summit" (or some less cheesy name if you prefer!) at both conferences, inviting everyone associated in any way with the overall OpenOffice.org community (open source projects like LibreOffice or the proposed Apache project, their direct downstreams like NeoOffice, their commercial derivatives like Symphony) to attend, preferably without charge. The event would need a neutral Chair/Organiser and a suitably egalitarian agenda, naturally. Is this worth exploring? S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On 6 Jun 2011, at 19:03, Nóirín Plunkett wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> My apologies if this proposal is out of place on either list, but I think >> it's worth thinking about early. Obviously I speak for neither Apache nor >> TDF but I have a deep concern for OpenOffice.org and am very keen to see the >> community healed. >> >> Given that: >> * both LibreOffice (October, Paris) and Apache (November, Vancouver) have >> conferences in the second half of the year, >> * between them cover both Europe and North America, >> * plenty of people will be travelling anyway to attend them, >> * it's much easier to co-operate with people you've met >> >> I would like to suggest to both TDF and Apache that they host an >> "OpenOffice.org Unity Summit" (or some less cheesy name if you prefer!) at >> both conferences, inviting everyone associated in any way with the overall >> OpenOffice.org community (open source projects like LibreOffice or the >> proposed Apache project, their direct downstreams like NeoOffice, their >> commercial derivatives like Symphony) to attend, preferably without charge. >> > > We haven't yet started scheduling the "Meetups" for ApacheCon yet (it > is still five months out :-)), but with such a vibrant community, it > seems certain to me that *someone* will propose an OOo one. It is > usual at Apache that those who volunteer to do the work get to steer a > course for that work, but I think we can ensure that it's open and > inclusive, and we always welcome new volunteers! > > Our Meetups are typically evening events adjacent to the main > conference, and are free of charge to attendees (whether or not > they're registered for the conference.) We'd be more than happy to > welcome the whole FLOSS-Office ecosystem, I'm sure. > > However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far > off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months, > perhaps we could set something up sooner than that? OSCON, anyone? I'll be at OSCON and would be pleased to help with this, sure. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Danese Cooper wrote: > However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far > off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months, > perhaps we could set something up sooner than that? OSCON, anyone? > > I've just asked for a room at OSCON, although I'd like to mention that many > of TDF's members are in Europe...we need to find venues there. > Not many big events in Europe before the end of August :-) I can probably get us space at OWF in Paris, 22-24 September (I am on the programme committee) if that's interesting, but it's only a month before LibreOfficeCon. S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Danese Cooper wrote: > >> However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far >> off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months, >> perhaps we could set something up sooner than that? OSCON, anyone? >> >> I've just asked for a room at OSCON, although I'd like to mention that >> many >> of TDF's members are in Europe...we need to find venues there. >> > > Not many big events in Europe before the end of August :-) I can probably > get us space at OWF in Paris, 22-24 September (I am on the programme > committee) if that's interesting, but it's only a month before > LibreOfficeCon. > > S. > > I've requested a space at Open World Forum too. S.
Re: List of files covered by the OpenOffice grant
I asked some LibreOffice folk what they thought was missing from the list. In addition to the stuff Christian listed (and the fact the list was not derived from the latest beta), they said that there are a large number of un-integrated work-in-progress patches in the form of CWSs that it would be important to secure. Michael Meeks collated everyone's input and sent me a list of them categorised by status, and I've made it available for download: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods Regards S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:04, Joe Schaefer wrote: > > It's just a meeting between colleagues. If all it does is > > break a little of the entrenched ice I'd call it a success. > > > > Sure beats email for dealing with emotions/trust. > > Right. > > And we can also be optimistic that the Incubator will vote the podling > in. And optimistic that we'd have something to talk about. Really... > nobody is talking about any kind of meetup before mid-July, so there > is time. > > Worst case? Podling doesn't get started, and we just don't meet up. > Not a big deal. > > But to get the ball rolling... yah. Let's try now. > > In the event it doesn't get started (and I sincerely hope it does) it will be even more important for the OpenOffice.org community-at-large to come together to work out what happens next. So I figure we need these meetings regardless, unless we all want the future devised in closed rooms by corporate politicians... S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:49 PM, wrote: > > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/06/2011 03:18:11 PM: > > > From: Simon Phipps > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Date: 06/06/2011 03:19 PM > > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:04, Joe Schaefer > wrote: > > > > It's just a meeting between colleagues. If all it does is > > > > break a little of the entrenched ice I'd call it a success. > > > > > > > > Sure beats email for dealing with emotions/trust. > > > > > > Right. > > > > > > And we can also be optimistic that the Incubator will vote the podling > > > in. And optimistic that we'd have something to talk about. Really... > > > nobody is talking about any kind of meetup before mid-July, so there > > > is time. > > > > > > Worst case? Podling doesn't get started, and we just don't meet up. > > > Not a big deal. > > > > > > But to get the ball rolling... yah. Let's try now. > > > > > > > > In the event it doesn't get started (and I sincerely hope it does) it > will > > be even more important for the OpenOffice.org community-at-large to come > > together to work out what happens next. So I figure we need these > meetings > > > regardless, unless we all want the future devised in closed rooms by > > corporate politicians... > > I thought the purpose of this thread was to move forward. > > > > > S. > /don I don't get your point, Don? Are you saying you disagree that community summits are worth holding regardless of the outcome of the Apache activity? S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
I've created a wiki page for us to co-ordinate who can attend what where. Do please edit at will, there are no rules and I am sure I made lots of mistakes :-) http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/OOoCommunitySummit S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote: > > > Hi Jim, all, > > > > 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski : > >> > >> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's > >>> recommendation, than taxes. > >>> > >> > >> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but > >> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle > >> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly > >> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in > >> a sense. Taxes were not an issue... > >> > > I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable": > > > http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/ > > > > TDF just refused to pay for anything which is under contract of Oracle. > > > > Thx for the link. It is good to see TDF opening up regarding > what their original request was to Oracle. Subsequent discussions, > of course, are not known but so what. They are moot. For whatever > reason, Oracle did not think that TDF was the right place. That > ship has sailed. Time to figure out what to do now. > I asked, and apparently there were no subsequent discussions. But I agree, this ship has sailed and I'd be pleased to see this all move into a podlet...
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal - Budget Concerns
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Nóirín Plunkett wrote: > > > Note that an expo-hall pass is free until (and including) today; it's > > $25 thereafter. > > > > This also opens up the evening events Mon-Fri, which, if you're going > > to find yourself in Portland that week, might be fun to attend :-) > > > > Noirin > > > > Drew Jensen probably have better knowlledge of the more community focus > events across the US. > > Specially the Linuxfests. They usually have a more open source crowd (with > open source budgets). > > I heard the Ohio Linuxfest is one of the most recognized ones. > Do please add ebents (and yourselves) to: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/OOoCommunitySummit S.
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
Add it to the wiki, Jomar! I'll be there for sure. S. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Jomar Silva (Cuca) wrote: > I understand that it could be difficult for you to come to Brazil on > the next month, but we'll have here the biggest Free Software event in > South America, the FISL (http://softwarelivre.org/fisl12?lang=en). > > I know that some of you were at FISL in past years, and maybe someone > will attend the event in this year. I'll be there and if we have some > of you here in Brazil too, we may find some room on the event to > discuss the themes proposed here with the Brazilian community (and > anyone else that would like to join us). > > You may already know that Brazil has a huge and active LO/OO community > and we estimate that we have millions of LO/OO users in Brazil (just > to give you a clear idea about that, the users commited to use ODF > just inside government is estimated in 3 million). > > Best, > > Jomar Silva > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
Rather wondering why this is the one thread that won't die... On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Allen Pulsifer wrote: > > > I think your labels "Conclusion" and "Supporting statements" are > incorrect > > To the contrary, Cor indicates that I nailed the matter quite squarely. > >--- Noel > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Question to TDF and its community
Christian Grobmeier schreef: >> We didn't balk when Geronimo was proposed, despite complaints from >> JBoss. >> We didn't balk when Felix (nee Oscar) was proposed. Â We didn't balk in >> other >> cases. Â We have never picked winners, we have incubated projects and >> let the >> community pick the winners. Â I don't see a reason to change our >> philosophy >> now. > > Geronimo is not the same case as OOo. > > With Geronimo people came and wanted to create it, because they were > not happy. The company complained. > > With OOo the company was nasty and people went away and were happy. > The company wants the project at the ASF, and some people complain > now. After all I never really heard the words "I want it at the ASF" > from somebody with OOo adress My opinion, as an independent OpenOffice.org community member, is that OpenOffice.org was, for most of its life, in excellent hands with Sun/Oracle all things considered. Given that Oracle has decided to pull away, I think handing it to an open source minded, vendor-neutral, mature, capable organization such as the ASF will provide it the best opportunities for continued success. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Ralph Goers schreef: > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka wrote: >>> >>> While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) >>> correct my >>> understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if >>> requested. But >>> this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations. >> >> I'll share my understanding. >> >> My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not >> accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious >> consideration. After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and >> Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving >> this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list >> to start from. If we needed more, we could discuss that later. >> >> This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May. After discussions with >> lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent >> via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day. Others with no association to >> either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline. >> >> My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains >> only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under >> incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to >> include a standard ASF software grant. >> >> While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more, >> and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this >> comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at >> Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith. >> >> It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if >> those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, >> that we will obtain subsequent software grants. > > Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote for > the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary Oracle has > supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. To put this into perspective, if I remember correctly Christian's summary dealt with file lists and did not take file size into account. So that 50% in file count may represent a far bigger percentage of source code. The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle can't supply and that is very difficult to replace. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Hi Thorsten, Thorsten Behrens schreef: > Simon Brouwer wrote: >> The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle >> can't supply and that is very difficult to replace. >> > If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is "yes". Both? That was only one question, and Christian's mail doesn't answer it with "yes". Although essential things are missing, it's not apparent that those are things Oracle doesn't have the copyright to. If you think otherwise, give examples please. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) > > On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik > wrote: > > > On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote: > > > > ... > >> LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amount of > >> "your" software. > > > > Great! Don't worry about that. We celebrate that. > > > > The folks here at apache tend to like to code - and if others use it - > build amazing things with it - so much the better. > > +1000 > > Can I ask if the above statement regarding reuse is a consensus position or > an individual opinion. > It's really just a matter of fact, Ross. The code is spaghetti of the first order, and unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same code for a long time. If we all do things right, this will be in the context of actual shared repositories. S.
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 07.06.2011 12:37, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>
>> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that
>>> even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code
>>> from the svn repository. It was promised that the needed files will
>>> be provided once they are known. I'm confident that this will work
>>> out.
>>>
>>> Hi Mathias,
>>
>> hm, that bears the risk of missing stuff, and having to redo the
>> work - potentially rather late in the game (on top of having to
>> replace all non-Oracle-owned code).
>>
>> Whereas getting a blanket statement from Oracle ("here we grant you
>> the hg repo bundle") admittedly puts some risk into Oracle's basket.
>>
>
> That's not possible as Oracle does not own the copyright for every file in
> the repository (example: dictionaries).
You are both right. It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle
to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in
the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current
commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask
you to seek?
> My approach would be to start with the whole list of files in the repo,
> remove all things I know that are problematic, create a diff to the list
> provided so far and have a second look on this difference list for possible
> "naughty bits".
>
> Everythings else (history etc.) can be sorted out later.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
>
Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
I just heard back from the Open World Forum Programme Committee (Paris, October) and they would be pleased to provide us with space for a meeting. S.
