On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, <robert_w...@us.ibm.com> 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 name of "purity" (and division of community), or you can be inclusive. The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we want to see here. >... >> Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in >> our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They >> can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified >> code into LO. >> >> If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues. > > That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having > user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would > especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that > should be noted. > > There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the > details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating > version numbers, etc. I can add that. > >> > I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take > source >> > code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. > I'm >> > not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking > that >> > the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee >> > collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent > in >> > the license. >> >> Calling TDF/LO "one of many who can take our source" is disingenuous. >> They are VERY definitely NOT just "one of the crowd". >> > > I see this distinction: > > -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice > > versus > > -- An extraordinary collaboration > > > I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former. "Could be"? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be. I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this email now. Come back later. -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
