4 ms·

That's not true. Seversl of us are quite happy to contribute our LO patches to OO. But they just don't have any manpower to merge them.

mindcrime 10y ago
Sure, I didn't say all LO developers. But from what I've seen (and to be fair, this recollection is a bit old) a lot of the LO people showed a lot of resistance to having code flow back the other way. OTOH, maybe things have changed since I formed that impression. At any rate, your willingness to do so is appreciated. As far-fetched as it sounds, I still hold out hope that one day the two projects can have an amicable co-existence and collaborate to a greater extent (than today).
- jimjag 10y ago
  Sure, I didn't say all LO developers. But from what I've seen (and to be fair, this recollection is a bit old) a lot of the LO people showed a lot of resistance to having code flow back the other way I will share a story. Awhile ago I was employed by Red Hat and, as we know, Red Hat has a number of developers working on LO. I was talking w/ our CTO at the time and suggested that it would be a Good Thing if Red Hat allowed all our code donated to LO be triple-licensed (MPL/GPL/ALv2) so that AOO could benefit from these contributions. He thought it was a great idea since it showed that Red Hat was all about open source and true universal sharing. But when we asked the developers they refused to do so. The explanations were either (1) We refuse to contribute to permissive projects or (2) We have been told by TDF that they will not accept any of our contributions so licensed. So the "resistance" in code flowing to AOO is, in fact, reality. My hope is that we can change that for the benefit of the entire OO eco-system. The "enemy", lest we forget, is MSO, not any of the OO implementations.
  - khaled 10y ago
    I’ve been contributing to LibreOffice since it early months and have been asked nicely if some of my patches can be used by AOO to which I agreed and they were used. To date no one ever from TDF or LibreOffice ever complained or threatened me over doing that.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    >> The "enemy", lest we forget, is MSO, not any of the OO implementations. If the purpose of the "war" is to increase userbase by stealing users from MSO, then having a single implementation that is broadly supported and has brand recognition is vastly preferable to the current situation with two forks, one of which has the branding, while the other one has the features.
  - dtardon 10y ago
    I got intrigued by your claims, so I dug up that old e-mail exchange. And I failed to find anything that would substatiate (2). So you misremember at best; at worst you're outright lying to make TDF the bad guys. Btw, the claim that Red Hat's CTO (or anyone else at RH) "thought it was a great idea" seems to be a bit exaggerated as well. The words you yourself used at that time were "... saw the logic of it".
  - davidgerard 10y ago
    > (2) We have been told by TDF that they will not accept any of our contributions so licensed. This claim is false, and it's a false claim I've seen you make before. If you maintain it is not, please link and quote the email that you consider substantiates it.
jimjag 10y ago
That is news to me... I've yet to see any real viable patches returned back to AOO. Very occasionally I will see large chunks of code that need to be extremely re-factored to be consumed by AOO, but that's not backwards contribution. If, however, there are, or have been, patches that could be consumed by AOO, I'd like to see URLs for those discussions and pull/merge requests. Thx!

mindcrime 10y ago

Sure, I didn't say all LO developers. But from what I've seen (and to be fair, this recollection is a bit old) a lot of the LO people showed a lot of resistance to having code flow back the other way. OTOH, maybe things have changed since I formed that impression. At any rate, your willingness to do so is appreciated. As far-fetched as it sounds, I still hold out hope that one day the two projects can have an amicable co-existence and collaborate to a greater extent (than today).

jimjag 10y ago
Sure, I didn't say all LO developers. But from what I've seen (and to be fair, this recollection is a bit old) a lot of the LO people showed a lot of resistance to having code flow back the other way I will share a story. Awhile ago I was employed by Red Hat and, as we know, Red Hat has a number of developers working on LO. I was talking w/ our CTO at the time and suggested that it would be a Good Thing if Red Hat allowed all our code donated to LO be triple-licensed (MPL/GPL/ALv2) so that AOO could benefit from these contributions. He thought it was a great idea since it showed that Red Hat was all about open source and true universal sharing. But when we asked the developers they refused to do so. The explanations were either (1) We refuse to contribute to permissive projects or (2) We have been told by TDF that they will not accept any of our contributions so licensed. So the "resistance" in code flowing to AOO is, in fact, reality. My hope is that we can change that for the benefit of the entire OO eco-system. The "enemy", lest we forget, is MSO, not any of the OO implementations.
- khaled 10y ago
  I’ve been contributing to LibreOffice since it early months and have been asked nicely if some of my patches can be used by AOO to which I agreed and they were used. To date no one ever from TDF or LibreOffice ever complained or threatened me over doing that.
- int_19h 10y ago
  >> The "enemy", lest we forget, is MSO, not any of the OO implementations. If the purpose of the "war" is to increase userbase by stealing users from MSO, then having a single implementation that is broadly supported and has brand recognition is vastly preferable to the current situation with two forks, one of which has the branding, while the other one has the features.
- dtardon 10y ago
  I got intrigued by your claims, so I dug up that old e-mail exchange. And I failed to find anything that would substatiate (2). So you misremember at best; at worst you're outright lying to make TDF the bad guys. Btw, the claim that Red Hat's CTO (or anyone else at RH) "thought it was a great idea" seems to be a bit exaggerated as well. The words you yourself used at that time were "... saw the logic of it".
- davidgerard 10y ago
  > (2) We have been told by TDF that they will not accept any of our contributions so licensed. This claim is false, and it's a false claim I've seen you make before. If you maintain it is not, please link and quote the email that you consider substantiates it.

jimjag 10y ago

That is news to me... I've yet to see any real viable patches returned back to AOO. Very occasionally I will see large chunks of code that need to be extremely re-factored to be consumed by AOO, but that's not backwards contribution. If, however, there are, or have been, patches that could be consumed by AOO, I'd like to see URLs for those discussions and pull/merge requests. Thx!