Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:15, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> On 03/06/2011 16:43, 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. >> >> >> I read it differently and more like what was proposed in this thread. >> >> The podling goes along as suggested and TDF continues to provide essential >> support to existing users of the the end user product that is currently >> called OpenOffice.org to some and LibreOffice to others). >> > > But what of the *development* of the code? 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. > If business-as-usual > is both sides independently developing the codebase, then > how does that address what is, I guess, a main issue? It doesn't help if there are two code bases, but if one project focusses on building permissively licensed core components that are needed in productivity apps in general then collaboration can happen on those components. LibreOffice can continue to build an LGPL office suite (using those core components and their build infrastructure) and others can continue to build their own end user products under whatever license they choose (which might include a permissively licences end user product here). 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. > Is the > idea that the ASF contribute code which is then consumed > by TDF and that any patches to TDF remain unaccessible to > the ASF? Does this result in the communities driving closer > together or farther apart? My hope is that the benefits of collaboration over maintaining a fork will bring us closer together. I realise this means copyleft only folk have to come towards us for this to work. Certainly some people who don't like permissive licenses will never do this. I hope there are enough who see collaboration as being the right option. I may be being naive, I prefer to think I'm an optimist. However, maybe your right. Maybe I'm trying to link two ideas that should be kept separate so they can be evaluated separately. Ross > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
