Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

----- Original Message ----

> From: Keith Curtis <keithcu@gmail.com>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >  On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> >  >       The overlap between TDF & ASF's goals for an  office product 
(modulo
> > > enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty  compelling proof of competition.
> >
> > I disagree... competition  implies a "winner" and a "loser"...
> > in FOSS, how do you measure that?  Market Share? Feh. When
> > you start looking at it that way, then what  makes FOSS FOSS
> > kinda gets overlooked.
> >
> > The intent of  FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide
> > freedom and choices to  end-users. If having 2 "competing" implementations
> > means that a larger  set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms
> > and choices than if there was  only 1 implementation, then the
> > "competition" is most  valid.
> >
> > It's being complementary, not  competitive.
>
> I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting  position that forks are
> bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes,  like war, but that
> doesn't make them ideal.

And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have been a 
necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is 
revisionist history.

> This is not like KOffice  because that codebase is so different and missing
> lots of features. No one is  arguing to get rid of KOffice here, or that a
> merge would be possible or  makes sense.This is only about very slightly
> different versions of a 10M line  codebase.

No it is not. But KOffice does provide a very good example of this.

KOffice recently had a fork - Calligra - that most all of the development team 
moved to as the KOffice proper was not being properly managed. Very similar to 
to the OOo vs TDF/LO situation.

Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a much 
healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with each 
other either.
 
> Another way to think about it: what features does Apache want  that
> LibreOffice does *not* want? Ubuntu forked Debian because they  wanted
> 6-month release cycles, proprietary drivers, etc. I see no list. Even  if you
> had a list of features LibreOffice didn't want, you could include the  code
> in LibreOffice and turn it off by default. OpenOffice could be  LibreOffice
> with different defaults. I don't think there is anything like  that either.

The real question is - since TDF/LO is the real fork, what does LibreOffice want 
that Oracle did not, and that Apache does not?
And that is primarily the LGPL+MPL.

Ben


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted