An uphill battle for LibreOffice [LWN.net]

An uphill battle for LibreOffice

Posted May 4, 2012 13:37 UTC (Fri) by thumperward (guest, #34368)
In reply to: An uphill battle for LibreOffice by leonov
Parent article: An uphill battle for LibreOffice

A bit of both. From a licensing point of view, Apache requires an Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) from contributors, as well as other formalities, before contributions can be accepted. This is a non-starter given that LibreOffice (and go-OO before it) were in large part a reaction to the previous requirement for copyright assignment in the old OOo. So it wouldn't be possible for the LibreOffice code to be donated en masse to Apache, at least not without getting every contributor to *again* submit to relicensing their code (TDF is tri-licensed under the MPL/GPL/MGPL, which required obtaining a relicensing statement from everyone who had contributed code to OOo which hadn't been assigned to Sun / Oracle).

Then there's the addition problem of using AOO as a "clean start" once it's released, and rebasing all of the LibreOffice code on top of an Apache-licensed core. This appears to be getting held up primarily due to Apache bureaucracy: there are various CWSes (temporary feature branches) in the old OOo source which have unclear licensing (as only released source was explicitly relicensed), and the Apache mentors have been dismissive of requests to ensure that these are covered by the license grant because the requests don't come from signed-in AOOO "Committers". [1] LibreOffice may depend on source in those CWSes and cannot distribute them under its tri-license unless they are first established to be under the Apache license.

Actually *joining* AOO as contributors is seen as dangerous for the independent future of LibreOffice / TDF (a process which took over a decade from the first call for an independent OOo foundation) as there are parties (in particular one IBM staffer) who would inevitably try to ensure that as much press as possible was given to "TDF joining Apache" and thus popular perception being that TDF's "fork" was no longer important.

Politically, the general perception appears to be that Apache is operating as a convenient foil for IBM to usurp the OpenOffice brand name and community. The vast majority of actual developers active on the main AOO list at the moment appear to be Chinese IBM staff. IBM's promised code drop of their private IAccessible2 work still hasn't materialised (see [2] for a discussion last year: IBM has promised to release this code for five years) and nor has their Symphony user interface code (also promised for "some time after the AOO release", though reading between the lines of what IBM staff has suggested for "AOO 4.0" it would seem more likely that this would occur through IBM throwing an entire release over the wall once it's done, and not in a way that makes reusing that code for LibreOffice practical). All of this is anathema to the original goal of TDF, which was a community-driven OOo not stymied by overbearing bureaucracy or held to ransom by vendors with their own interests.

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-de...
[2] http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ms...

An uphill battle for LibreOffice

Posted May 7, 2012 14:38 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

Huh. The thing about that thread that surprises me isn't the suggestion to become an AOOO contributor and help if they really care (I mean, really, what else would you expect on an open source project?).

It's the implication that the licensing issues being discussed will somehow magically be addressed when the release is cut and there's a tarball of Apache Officially Blessed Source Code. I mean, making a release includes a *VOTE* by an Apache IPMC and PMC. And holding a vote is a sure way to determine if any unauthorized relicensing of LGPL code into Apache License code by changing the license headers occurred, right?

An uphill battle for LibreOffice

Posted May 8, 2012 0:05 UTC (Tue) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (3 responses)

You appear to misunderstand how Apache works. Let me clear up some of the confusion.

First, the Apache ICLA is not a copyright assignment like the old Sun CLA was. The "C" stands for Contributor, not Copyright, and if you read the document you see that it says nothing at all about copyright assignment:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt

Second, the Apache ICLA is not required in order to contribute code to an Apache project. Yes, it must be contributed under the Apache license, but there is more than one way to do this. Apache projects regularly accept patches from contributors on the mailing list or via Bugzilla, without an ICLA.

Third, the Apache OpenOffice already has active members of LibreOffice. Several have even been elected as Committers in the project. So if I or anyone else wanted to make a big deal of this, we would have done so already.

4th, only individuals can join an Apache project, not corporations or foundations. So it does not make sense to talk of LO/TDF joining Apache. But as mentioned above, there are already individuals who are happy to contribute to both projects.

5th, The recent increase in Chinese developers on the list is not from IBM, but from another company, Chinese Standard Software Corporation, in Beijing. These are the engineers from the former RedFlag/RedOffice, who have a lot of experience with this code base. So it is great to see them join.

6th, The IBM contribution of Symphony is ready to go once Apache OpenOffice 3.4 is released. We're talking a week or two at this point.

An uphill battle for LibreOffice

Posted May 8, 2012 1:49 UTC (Tue) by thumperward (guest, #34368) [Link] (2 responses)

> You appear to misunderstand how Apache works.

You are new to Apache yourself. I'll thank you not to patronise an audience not known for being ill-informed, especially given that contributors and mentors alike have expressed concerns[1] (or indeed resigned from the project[2]) on the grounds of your behaviour.

> First, the Apache ICLA is not a copyright assignment like the old Sun CLA was. The "C" stands for Contributor, not Copyright, and if you read the document you see that it says nothing at all about copyright assignment:

The difference is academic. In either case IBM is free to use the code in question for any purpose it wishes, proprietary or not, with very little restriction. The only way in which assignment differs to restriction-free licensing here is the entirely theoretical one where someone may be sued for distribution code one wrote onesself: at present this is irrelevant.

> Second, the Apache ICLA is not required in order to contribute code to an Apache project. Yes, it must be contributed under the Apache license, but there is more than one way to do this. Apache projects regularly accept patches from contributors on the mailing list or via Bugzilla, without an ICLA.

A red herring. The Apache mentor in the directly referenced post specifically stated that a request to ensure that a given set of CWSes would not be acted upon except in the case of charity unless it came from a signed-up member of the project.

> Third, the Apache OpenOffice already has active members of LibreOffice. Several have even been elected as Committers in the project. So if I or anyone else wanted to make a big deal of this, we would have done so already.

An overlap in the communities does not prove that the communities are in agreement. Plainly some significant contributors of LibreOffice code feel that the present situation may make it impossible to successfully rebase LibreOffice on the Oracle code dump. That others have failed to register such concerns does not mean that they do not exist.

> 4th, only individuals can join an Apache project, not corporations or foundations. So it does not make sense to talk of LO/TDF joining Apache. But as mentioned above, there are already individuals who are happy to contribute to both projects.

Nevertheless, your own reply suggests that any broad move towards such would be framed by at least some AOO "Committers" in terms of "even some TDF members have joined the Apache effort". Given the old OOo's dominance in mindshare in the wider world, this is hardly healthy.

> 5th, The recent increase in Chinese developers on the list is not from IBM, but from another company, Chinese Standard Software Corporation, in Beijing. These are the engineers from the former RedFlag/RedOffice, who have a lot of experience with this code base. So it is great to see them join.

A significant proportion of these developers identify as being part of the Lotus Symphony development team.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] If a majority of these developers are indeed from other vendors then I have not seen evidence to that effect.

> 6th, The IBM contribution of Symphony is ready to go once Apache OpenOffice 3.4 is released. We're talking a week or two at this point.

IAccessible2 has been promised for five years. Promise of code is not code, no matter what the time frame.

An uphill battle for LibreOffice

Posted May 8, 2012 2:41 UTC (Tue) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (1 responses)

1. Although some Apache members might dislike the fact that I don't suffer fools gladly, I don't think any of them will agree with your statements or disagree with the facts as I state them here. (And btw, I am not new to Apache. I was also a Committer back in 2000, on Apache Xalan)

2. With the CWS's, no one in the project is paid to do research or code for LibreOffice. If someone at LO wants something done, then they will need to either do it themselves or persuade someone at Apache to do it for them. And btw, insulting the Apache project at every turn is not a recommended way to persuade someone to help you. And demanding that things be done immediately is also unlikely to elicit the kind of response you wish.

In any case, we asked for a list of which CWS's LO wants. We're waiting, patiently, for a response.

3. If you check our version control logs I think find that not a single commit has been made by the Symphony team in Beijing. So your assertion that the "vast majority of actual developer[s]...appear to be Chinese IBM staff" is false. But what if it were true? Do you have a problem with Chinese engineers or something?

4. As for your statement that "I have not seen evidence to that effect" that other Chinese companies are involved, this would only be true if you have not read the list in the last week, where we had a huge set of introductions by such developers. Perhaps you missed these *43 posts*:

http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator...

5. As for promises of code not being the same as code, that is undeniably true. So I assume that in a couple of weeks when the code is actually contributed, you'll be gracious and give us credit for carrying out that promise?

An uphill battle for LibreOffice

Posted May 8, 2012 8:05 UTC (Tue) by thumperward (guest, #34368) [Link]

> (And btw, I am not new to Apache. I was also a Committer back in 2000, on Apache Xalan)

My apologies.

> In any case, we asked for a list of which CWS's LO wants. We're waiting, patiently, for a response.

Indeed. The response to that list, if and when it comes, will be a key moment.

> 3. If you check our version control logs I think find that not a single commit has been made by the Symphony team in Beijing. So your assertion that the "vast majority of actual developer[s]...appear to be Chinese IBM staff" is false.

We're talking about public perception of who is in charge of the project, as perceived from the mailing list (which, for Apache projects, is the canonical source for activity). A large number of IBM staff arriving after you raised a call on the list asking about contributors' experience with the codebase (the parent message to most of the previously-linked mails) certainly reinforces that perception. I'm not sure what it says if none of them have actually contributed any code to AOO.

> But what if it were true? Do you have a problem with Chinese engineers or something?

Certainly not. However, *if* it were true, then that would rather confirm that the project were being primarily driven and developed by IBM, as opposed to the community-led (vendor-sponsored, certainly, but within a broader developer ecosystem) LibreOffice.

> 4. As for your statement that "I have not seen evidence to that effect" that other Chinese companies are involved, this would only be true if you have not read the list in the last week, where we had a huge set of introductions by such developers. Perhaps you missed these *43 posts*:
> http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator...

As a matter of fact I had. It's encouraging that there is at least one other vendor working on AOO.

> 5. As for promises of code not being the same as code, that is undeniably true. So I assume that in a couple of weeks when the code is actually contributed, you'll be gracious and give us credit for carrying out that promise?

Certainly. A release of that magnitude would be a huge boon and IBM would be rightly praised for it.