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 LibreOffic
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
On 4 June 2011 13:37, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
>
> >
> > 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
> > > availabl
Hello Jochen,
2011/6/4 Jochen Wiedmann
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
>
> 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
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, 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 fee
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 qualifie
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 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.
And rightfully so, if your understanding is righ
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
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, wrote:
>>...
>> Simon,
>>
>> Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:
>>
>> "potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well
>> as on Windows and Mac consumer end
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/
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 mention
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, wrote:
>...
> Simon,
>
> Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:
>
> "potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well
> as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users"
>
> By one definition, "complementary" means non-over
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 06:16:22 PM:
>
> 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
> wi
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:38AM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> 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
>
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 07:07:39PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> But engaging the LO community on a basic matter of "hey. I'm here to
> answer any questions, and to listen to concerns." Acting as a raw
> conduit can be difficult (witness Jim's early emails being forwarded
> across the lists).
>
I
ox/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
rom: 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 pe
I popped into the LO IRC channel a few times
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 4 Jun 2011, at 00:39, 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@incubat
documentation is leading
to documents that are GPL3/CC-by dual-licensed.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 15:16
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration
(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
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 assoc
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 Founda
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 peo
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 perso
Allen,
+1...fwiw, i did not say i needed to hear from them in this mailing
list :) The usual person tagged with this kind of responsibility is
the champion of the proposal and/or the mentors. i am quite fine
waiting to hear back through whatever channels are being used.
thanks,
dims
On Fri, Jun
> 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.
Personally, I woul
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 Open
[mailto:si...@webmink.com]
> <
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktimkdxoce12t-xggq5ls+nmkluo...@mail.gmail.com%3e>
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 14:21
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator
essage-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
<
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktimkdxoce12t-xggq5ls+nmkluo...@mail.gmail.com%3e>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 14:21
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:53, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about
> this suggested path.
>> In the end the people who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating
> or not...But, here's
>> my +1 that implies that i'd like folks wh
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 co
> As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about
this suggested path.
> In the end the people who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating
or not...But, here's
> my +1 that implies that i'd like folks who are signing on to this podling
do their best to make this
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 23:01, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> If
> TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this
> would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would
> welcome that as well.
It's
Simon,
As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about this
suggested path. In the end the people
who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating or not...But, here's my +1
that implies that i'd like folks who are
signing on to this podling do their best to make t
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Greg Stein wrote:
> When
> you argue to *not* put them [TDF/LO] into the proposal, then I call that
> "exclusive" rather than "inclusive".
+1
Ross
-
+1 (I like the positive tone that tries to omit words having a
negative connotation)
Cheers
Daniel
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly comp
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 relationsh
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 05:42:14 PM:
>
> So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a
> teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this
> proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that "including them by
> reference [to the Apache License]" is
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> There are two common patterns at the ASF: RTC and CTR, which are
>> Review The Commit and Commit Then Review. Most places operate with a
>> CTR policy.
>
> I don't know how common it is in gen
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>
> There are two common patterns at the ASF: RTC and CTR, which are
> Review The Commit and Commit Then Review. Most places operate with a
> CTR policy.
>
I don't know how common it is in general, but the Apache community I'm most
familiar wit
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
>>> >...
>>> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>>>
>>> This is the sectio
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
>> >...
>> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>>
>> This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
>> consider
>
> And if we split the page into separate proposals (not unlikely given the
> clear differences of vision expressed on the list already), which one is
> voted on? All of them?
Rob,
Splitting the page would be an extreme situation, and it would
indicate, to me, that the incubator PMC is faced wi
Please do not turn this thread into *ANOTHER* however polite argument
the possible construction of the community.
>
> 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.
>
Yes: As Sam wrote:
. Defacement
>> of
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 05:17:46 PM:
>
> 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
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
> >
dsh wrote on 06/03/2011 04:11:43 PM:
>
> Rob,
>
> I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do
> you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and
> diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not
> shut the door in the very beginning an
I started the process by adding a couple of TBD's.
My little vision is that IPMC members might add notes of the form:
"I cannot vote +1 for this proposal until this section addresses issue X'"
When all those comments are gone, we have, in effect, voted.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Sam Ruby
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 th
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 i
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
Rob,
I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do
you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and
diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not
shut the door in the very beginning and thus omit collaboration with
other parties. Tho, whe
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
> >...
> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>
> This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
> consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
>
> Lo
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
>...
> This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:57:48 PM:
> 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
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 yo
On 06/03/2011 12:57 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
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 wit
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.
> >
>
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?
I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source
code from our
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 acti
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.
Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
from ASF into their products.
(and typo in the first sentence)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:03, wrote:
> I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new
> options coming up. So I'd like to record the sta
I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new
options coming up. So I'd like to record the state of the issue. If
there is consensus on this formulation, I'll place it in the wiki. Of
course, if the discussion advances the issue or positions move, I can
always go b
66 matches
Mail list logo
