Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM: > > 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. >
Greg, TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete suggestions, fire away. But please do not accuse me of "excluding" them from the proposal or "purity" or "division of community" or suggest that I'm "pretending" anything. It seems to me that you are being very quick to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from. Please be civil and assume that I am being sincere. I will strive to do the same of you. > >... > >> 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 did not say "one of the crowd". Please don't put words into my mouth. I merely said that the target of this proposal is the IPMC, and suggested that we ought to respect their time and not list things that are inherent with the Apache 2.0 license and ASF policy. We should draw attention to any special considerations that we foresee. The fact that Apache 2.0 code can be used is not special. If the Lord Almighty decided to use our code, but did nothing more, I would not note that fact in the collaboration section of the wiki. But I would note Him among important downstream users. > > > > 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. > A citation please, Greg. I have not seen anyone from TDF/LO state that they *will* take Apache code. Thus the conditional statement. Do you have a better way of saying it that is also an accurate way of saying it? > I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this > email now. Come back later. > Regards, -Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
