31 messages in org.apache.incubator.ooo-devRe: Symphony contribution| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Rob Weir | Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm | |
| Roberto Salomon | Jul 13, 2011 3:55 pm | |
| Ross Gardler | Jul 13, 2011 4:29 pm | |
| Marcus (OOo) | Jul 13, 2011 4:47 pm | |
| Simon Phipps | Jul 13, 2011 5:06 pm | |
| Donald Harbison | Jul 13, 2011 6:43 pm | |
| Carl Marcum | Jul 13, 2011 7:28 pm | |
| Dave Fisher | Jul 13, 2011 7:31 pm | |
| Yong Lin Ma | Jul 13, 2011 8:09 pm | |
| Arthur Buijs | Jul 13, 2011 10:33 pm | |
| Rob Weir | Jul 13, 2011 10:46 pm | |
| Marcus (OOo) | Jul 13, 2011 11:37 pm | |
| Rolf Eder | Jul 14, 2011 12:11 am | |
| Graham Lauder | Jul 14, 2011 12:30 am | |
| Ian Lynch | Jul 14, 2011 1:18 am | |
| Malte Timmermann | Jul 14, 2011 2:54 am | |
| Malte Timmermann | Jul 14, 2011 4:20 am | |
| Eike Rathke | Jul 14, 2011 5:00 am | |
| Eike Rathke | Jul 14, 2011 5:13 am | |
| eric b | Jul 14, 2011 5:31 am | |
| Donald Harbison | Jul 14, 2011 5:38 am | |
| imacat | Jul 14, 2011 6:59 pm | |
| Wolf Halton | Jul 14, 2011 7:27 pm | |
| Rob Weir | Jul 18, 2011 4:53 pm | |
| Rob Weir | Jul 18, 2011 7:07 pm | |
| Andy Brown | Jul 18, 2011 7:19 pm | |
| Steve Lee | Jul 19, 2011 8:45 am | |
| Malte Timmermann | Jul 20, 2011 10:06 am | |
| Jean Hollis Weber | Jul 22, 2011 12:06 pm | |
| Jean Hollis Weber | Jul 22, 2011 12:23 pm | |
| Rob Weir | Jul 22, 2011 12:34 pm |
| Subject: | Re: Symphony contribution | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Donald Harbison (dpha...@gmail.com) | |
| Date: | Jul 13, 2011 6:43:47 pm | |
| List: | org.apache.incubator.ooo-dev | |
(With my IBM hat)....
The intent here is to shift the primary development focus to Apache OpenOffice over time. Just as LibreOffice has business commitments to SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, and the other Linux distributions, so does IBM with Symphony and its user community. It would appear that both LibreOffice and Symphony share this challenge, as both packages have much in common with the future success of Apache OpenOffice.
We are all undergoing a fairly radical re-planning excercise. The IBM intent is to 'get off the Symphony fork' within the frame of what's possible, by focusing our energies and resources on Apache OpenOffice working collaboratively and openly in the community. We invite LibreOffice to undergo a similar transformation.
Transparency is key here, as we all agree.
/don
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Simon Phipps <sim...@webmink.com> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2011, at 23:00, Rob Weir wrote:
However, we at IBM have not been exemplary community members when it came to OpenOffice.org. This wasn't necessarily by design, but for various reasons, that was the effect. Yes, we participated in various community councils, and sponsored conferences and worked together on standards. But when it came down to the code, we maintained Symphony essentially as a fork, and although we occasionally contributed code back, we did not do this well, or often.
Thanks for saying this, Rob. I for one appreciate the openness of this statement.
First, we're going to contribute the standalone version of Lotus Symphony to the Apache OpenOffice.org project, under the Apache 2.0 license.
While I'd not expect you to disclose secrets, can you say something about IBM's future intent with this code? Do you intend to develop Symphony as an open source project in the future, or is this a one-time code drop? It will make a difference to our collective planning.
Thanks,
S.