That whole "you're welcome to join us" is really an insulting treatment. Like the kind you'd expect to get from a snob.
ooo-build has long been more than build fixes (and has been at go-oo since the ximian days, IIRC). I read the story there first instead of here so left my 2 cents on its history there:
Joined: Nov 27, 2005 Posts: 108 Location: Salford, UK
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:54 am Post subject:
Hmm, its also not helpful for people who I've been harping on to about using Openoffice.org do I
a) not tell them and know they are using an inferior product, also running the risk of having them turn round and say "Why didn't you tell me there was a better version our? Steve did he's great Steve, knows much more than you", "grrr... Steve."
b) tell them and end up in a big circular discussion on why there are essentially two version of the same thing
b) tell them and end up in a big circular discussion on why there are essentially two version of the same thing
Isn't this the same issue with NeoOffice?
I see no problem with users having choices. If the plethora of products that I see in retailers is any indication, people really like have the ability to choose what they think best fits their needs. It is for this reason that Ed and I don't proclaim NeoOffice the "one and only solution" and point others to MS Office or iWork if NeoOffice doesn't fit their particular needs.
Does that matter? Even if you sign the JCA, not everything you write is co-owned by Sun.
As far as I see it develop now, there will be a nice core OOo and lots of additions (Kohei's solver, NeoOffice mac code, VBA?, OOXML) that are well functioning, but for one reason or another just not integrated upstream. Even though licensing isn't technically an issue for Sun to use the code (as Patrick has explained many times).
<sarcasm>The next thing will be for a group of well-meaning amateurs with some Sun support to start rewriting the solver from scratch with ever slipping deadlines.</sarcasm>
Best wishes,
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 Oct 03, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject:
MacRat wrote:
What is not being pointed out much is that this started out because Kohei doesn't want to sign the contributor agreement.
I believe even Patrick and Ed have signed this for code they have contributed.
Yes, I'm actually an original CA signee. For me this means that code I donate back has all ownership assigned to Sun and I retain none. Of course, this agreement only applies for code that I donate under that copyright agreement. I never saw a need to sign the JCA since it isn't really any different.
That said, OOo has happily incorporated LGPL and non-LGPL code that is not covered under JCA into their CVS repository and sources. There are many examples: the Mozilla code used for address book and macro security, boost, GPC, Python, and even a version of our own NeoLight Spotlight plugin code (which was LGPL licensed, but *not* covered under CA/JCA).
OOo has historical precedent for accepting non-JCA contributions, and even non-LGPL contributions in for use in their product, even for things that are core code components and not a shared library like the solver extension. As to Sun's "argument" in this situation, I personally call b*******.
Yes, I'm actually an original CA signee. For me this means that code I donate back has all ownership assigned to Sun and I retain none.ed
Signing a JOINT copyright assignment doesn't make Sun the OWNER of your code.
You still retain copyright yourself.
There are plenty of things about the OOo crew to gripe about, but a JCA that is common in many open source projects is not something to bitch at Sun about.
There are plenty of things about the OOo crew to gripe about, but a JCA that is common in many open source projects is not something to bitch at Sun about.
I agree. IMHO, the copyright assignment issue is merely the springboard that Novell used to bring their real issue to the table: Novell wants more say in how OOo operates.
I understand and sympathize with Novell's position, but I personally think they are not going to get anywhere in this. After all, Sun's OOo engineering group is comfortable with their processes so why change just to make Novell happy.
Ultimately, I think that if Novell wants to get OOo to change, they will need to accept that they are operating a fork and, like any organization that has a different vision, they will need to market their fork as a separate product. If this sounds radical, it is not. Look at RedOffice and IBM. Both were marketing their own branded OOo forks just like us and they were heavily demonized by OOo. Now, they are all working together.
Why they haven't done is this is something I cannot understand. My only guess is that Novell is happy to write OOo code but they do not want to provide support for their product. I base this theory on the fact that the go-oo.org site has never had a bug tracking system or mailing lists or forums.
If my theory is correct, Novell really wants to offload support for their code to Sun and Sun, not surprisingly, isn't interested in being the "default support provider" for other people's code. If Novell makes a competitive fork, they must setup and staff the support infrastructure themselves just as we have and that is likely something that Novell is unwilling to fund.
The problem is that OOo has two permitted, equally valid methods of including your code in OOo: either you sign the JCA and it's tightly integrated (which makes sense for any code in the core of OOo), or the code becomes an external module with the LGPL license (which works best for modular code and/or code that depends on third-party libraries).
The Solver seems clearly rather modular *and* it depends on third-party libraries, so it seems like the "external module under LGPL" route pursued by Kohei was entirely sensible (and, to top it off, the previous author of a Solver-like tool had been lobbied extensively by OOo to LGPL his code as an external module, which gives further support to the idea that "external module under LGPL" was entirely appropriate for the current Solver).
There are all sorts of sideshows to this issue—the JCA sucks, the JCA assigns to Sun, not to a non-profit foundation, Sun controls OOo, etc.—but the real issue here is that there are two valid ways of getting code into OOo, all signs indicated that "external module under LGPL" was not only an option, but the preferred option, for getting the Solver code into OOo, and then Sun said "No, sorry, not for this code" and announced its own vapourware version without notifying the current Solver's author first.
That's just two-faced, treacherous, unprofessional behavior.
Smokey
/author of a few lines of OOo code
//in an LGPLed external module _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Yes, I'm actually an original CA signee. For me this means that code I donate back has all ownership assigned to Sun and I retain none.ed
Signing a JOINT copyright assignment doesn't make Sun the OWNER of your code.
You still retain copyright yourself.
There are plenty of things about the OOo crew to gripe about, but a JCA that is common in many open source projects is not something to bitch at Sun about.
while this may be true of the JCA, (and ed, correct me if i am wrong) the original CA, before OO.o was LGPL, was a different document and took more from you as the programmer.
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
