If IBM "pulls a harmony", TDF can just use the Apache licensed code that's available and run with it. Here the problem currently is how to make things work if/when the podling gets accepted and folks start contributing, stick around for a long time with lots of good contributions from multiple sources.
http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06529.html -- dims On 06/05/2011 08:32 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > Attempting to guess IBM strategy around this ... > > IMO the reason this whole thing is happening is because with TDF there no > longer was a place that downstream proprietary aggregators of OO like IBM > could use to build a closed-source solution (no org to do a dual license > with). The Apache license is (one of) the best options for that and > certainly the Apache brand doesn't hurt towards building a credible > alternative to MS Office. > > To that extent it wouldn't surprise me at all to see IBM donating whatever > their proprietary add-ons from their Lotus product to this project and > thereby taking a larger role. > > My concern from the ASF's point of view is that how do we protect from IBM > "doing a Harmony" on this? I guess one advantage is that there's nothing > else out there and an office work toolset is a necessary feature for many > vendors ... so there's relatively little risk of a TCK or an OpenJDK type > alternative happening. If MSFT decides to open up office (not likely) or > Google decides to open source their corresponding apps bits (again, not > likely at least until OO has a credible Web offering) something could happen > but those are far fetched at this point. > > After all that, TDF has unfortunately been left holding the wrong end of the > stick :(. If I was in TDF I'd definitely feel screwed by Oracle .. but > really this is not just Oracle but rather the larger value-add community > around OO saying lets get together. That is not possible without the Apache > license as those guys all want to make proprietary products. ASF is not the > bad guy but rather the one who has all the features to host this project as > a result. To that extent those value-add types are "using" ASF but that's > not necessarily a bad way for this project to get started. Whether it > succeeds long term is a function of it becoming a true ASF project with a > multitude of disparate contributors etc.. > > 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. > > Sanjiva. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, <robert_w...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote on 06/05/2011 04:22:35 PM: >> >>> >>> Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the >>> project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor >>> or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project >>> seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified. >>> >> >> Joe, it will be my pleasure to astonish you. But it will take a few more >> days ;-) >> >> It is amazing how much paperwork is involved, at a large corporation, to >> enable such things. >> >> -Rob >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
