Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:10 pm Post subject: Re: neoj is on the home page of openoffice.org
Glenn wrote:
Patrick's donation of the changes to the underlying oo code was acknowledged very prominently.
And also very warmly received among the porting crowd. Very nice move on Patrick's part, both from a technical and from a community relations standpoint. I hope it also enables OOo 2.0 for the Mac to develop and stabilize more quickly. _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
There's been some rancor among the OOo community about (primarily corporations) basing products off of OOo code but not contributing back, so the NeoOffice/J case is a good counter-example to this, and one OOo can exploit to shame other groups building OOo-based products under LGPL but not contributing back
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:28 pm Post subject: Thanks
As a Community Volunteer at OpenOffice, I just want to give you guys all a personal thanks for doing this. Your project has helped OpenOffice tremendously.
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: neoj is on the home page of openoffice.org
Glenn wrote:
Patrick's donation of the changes to the underlying oo code was acknowledged very prominently. Glenn
The donation is also mentioned in the OOo Newsletter 04-2005 (April 29, 2005) under Announcements, quote:
NeoOffice/J Donates Code
NeoOffice/J is an independent project building a Java-powered Aqua-fied Mac OS X port of OpenOffice.org. Its donation resolves numerous bugs. Thanks! We look forward to further collaboration.
Unfortunately, it seems like the code is just going to sit there. I cc'd ericb on one of the old bugs I had filed and which Patrick's donation fixes (Mac aliases), so that he and the current porters (the bug's assigned to Dan) wouldn't forget it was there and had a fix, and ericb's reply seemed to blow me off, as if the fixes wouldn't integrated, or that including free, tested bug fixes at least wasn't a priority.
The porting team also seems to be continuing to re-invent the wheel for the UTF filename support, and Patrick's donation has a well-tested, working patch for that, too....
A bit frustrated that the cooperation seems to have stalled at anything beyond joint press releases....
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject:
Heh. Patrick even committed them to the OOo repository, if memory serves me correctly, into one of the child workspaces created specifically for that purpose. Patrick committed every fix we made relating to crashes that are also definitively present in the OOo code (e.g. he donated everything that wasn't the Java windowing part, even including his installer and instructions on how to make the application self-localizing).
If they're not willing to merge them in that's their problem. Licensing is no longer a concern, so I guess only boneheadedness can be to blame now. The difficulty in getting patches merged into mainline OOo was one of the reasons we forked in the first place.
Unfortunately, it seems like the code is just going to sit there. I cc'd ericb on one of the old bugs I had filed and which Patrick's donation fixes (Mac aliases), so that he and the current porters (the bug's assigned to Dan) wouldn't forget it was there and had a fix, and ericb's reply seemed to blow me off, as if the fixes wouldn't integrated, or that including free, tested bug fixes at least wasn't a priority.
The porting team also seems to be continuing to re-invent the wheel for the UTF filename support, and Patrick's donation has a well-tested, working patch for that, too....
A bit frustrated that the cooperation seems to have stalled at anything beyond joint press releases....
Smokey
I wonder if it would be worth pinging Pavel Janik. He seems to be have something to do with getting the workspaces integrated/pushed into Q/A.
Unfortunately, the fact that the code has build up over a long time means it is relatively large, meaning a longer q/a time, more potential risk.
I wonder if it would be worth pinging Pavel Janik. He seems to be have something to do with getting the workspaces integrated/pushed into Q/A.
Unfortunately, the fact that the code has build up over a long time means it is relatively large, meaning a longer q/a time, more potential risk.
At this point, pushing buttons seems like the thing to do. But as far as I can tell, the porting people have enough trouble getting everyone to build milestone 93-98 in the same way. It seems a wee bit chaotic, and I expect they'll try to sort out their build processes first and worry about features later..
I hope things start moving again. _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
I wonder if it would be worth pinging Pavel Janik. He seems to be have something to do with getting the workspaces integrated/pushed into Q/A.
Unfortunately, the fact that the code has build up over a long time means it is relatively large, meaning a longer q/a time, more potential risk.
At this point, pushing buttons seems like the thing to do. But as far as I can tell, the porting people have enough trouble getting everyone to build milestone 93-98 in the same way. It seems a wee bit chaotic, and I expect they'll try to sort out their build processes first and worry about features later..
I hope things start moving again.
That was my sense also.
Plus, its a moving target - each new milestone seems to have its own challenges, and they keep coming.
It also seems like the focus bug wise is on gross failures like missing runtime components, can't save etc.
My sense was that it is still very early in the process. In addition, Patrick's patches may require updating for the 2.0 codebase - there doesn't seem to be much going on with Mac 1.1.x codebase currently (other than for Patrick's work, of course).
But as far as I can tell, the porting people have enough trouble getting everyone to build milestone 93-98 in the same way. It seems a wee bit chaotic, and I expect they'll try to sort out their build processes first and worry about features later..
Plus, its a moving target - each new milestone seems to have its own challenges, and they keep coming.
It also seems like the focus bug wise is on gross failures like missing runtime components, can't save etc.
I'd buy that if one of the things that wasn't frequently being discussed was the locale and UTF-8 filename bug(s), which Patrick's contributed well-tested fixes for, and which they keep inventing their own new patches apparently without looking at or trying Patrick's fixes.
The build and save and whatnot are real issues, and really important ones, and the alias one not so, but the locale and UTF-8 filename issue is a big one they've been talking about, and "trying" to fix since the first 1.9.xx build that launched on Mac OS X, so...
Edit: And now they feel the need to develop their own Spotlight plugin.... So much for cooperation....
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Plus, its a moving target - each new milestone seems to have its own challenges, and they keep coming.
It also seems like the focus bug wise is on gross failures like missing runtime components, can't save etc.
I'd buy that if one of the things that wasn't frequently being discussed was the locale and UTF-8 filename bug(s), which Patrick's contributed well-tested fixes for, and which they keep inventing their own new patches apparently without looking at or trying Patrick's fixes.
The build and save and whatnot are real issues, and really important ones, and the alias one not so, but the locale and UTF-8 filename issue is a big one they've been talking about, and "trying" to fix since the first 1.9.xx build that launched on Mac OS X, so...
Edit: And now they feel the need to develop their own Spotlight plugin.... So much for cooperation....
Smokey
I'd suggest cutting them a bit of slack there. They seem to have a ton on the go, and haven't talked about the UTF-8 filename fix lately. Once they do, I think a comment about Patrick's patch would be appropriate.
I completely understand Patrick's logic in making a super patch ("here's everything"), but I'm sure, from the OOo Mac X11 side, it seems overwelming, and hard to review/Q/A etc ("wow, that's a ton of stuff").
I think the "lets make a spotlight plugin" remark came from a newcomer who hasn't contributed before, if I'm not mistaken. I also noticed that he asked for Ed's source - wonder if there's some confusion there - does he realize Ed has already done the job?
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject:
Whatever folks decide to want to try and do over in OOo is their own problem. OOo is primarily about politics and fiefdoms. There's a reason why two of the founding engineers for OS X are no longer there.
NeoLight is LGPL only. It will not be relicensed under SISSL.
NeoLight is my fiefdom, and I want to ensure that it remains free for all.
NeoLight is LGPL only. It will not be relicensed under SISSL.
Well, nothing stops them from linking here or including a version for free in the OpenOffice install package.
I also think this is not much of an issue anymore. Last time I got sent out to smooth relations between Neo and Open, I found that nobody on the porting list seemed to mind if the Mac ports were released under LGPL only, considering there is apparently little incentive for a commercial version. There was quite a bit of enthousiasm, actually. Unfortunately, nobody from around here felt the need to respond .
In a nutshell, I think they'll get to features when they have an application that actually builds and runs safely. I'll hold my judgement on what they do with the patches Patrick has donated until after that time.
Oscar _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:24 am Post subject:
I have no problem if it's incorporated into part of their installer...that's what makes LGPL and GPL nice due to the aggreagation clauses. It's free as in freedom
My only thing with licensing is that I don't want to put my work under a license that could allow someone to take it, make improvements, and not be required to open them back to the community. An example of this is IBM Workplace which actually has a full version of OOo embedded in it but any improvements and integration remains closed source due to the SISSL license clause. I don't know if there are any useful enhancements they made to the program myself, but it's sad to think that if there are OOo can't benefit from them
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
I cc'd ericb on one of the old bugs I had filed and which Patrick's donation fixes (Mac aliases), so that he and the current porters (the bug's assigned to Dan) wouldn't forget it was there and had a fix, and ericb's reply seemed to blow me off, as if the fixes wouldn't integrated, or that including free, tested bug fixes at least wasn't a priority.
