Subject: Re: What should Sun do?
From: Adam Turoff <>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:41:51 -0500

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 04:03:44PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Turoff <> writes:
>     Adam> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:21:15AM -0500, Russell Nelson
>     Adam> wrote:
>     >> Why not just donate it to the Mozilla Foundation, or the Gnome
>     >> Foundation, or the Open Source Initiative, or the Public
>     >> Software Fund, or the Free Software Foundation?  What purpose
>     >> would another non-profit serve?
>     Adam> Direction.  Governance.  Independance.
> In other words, making sure that Sun can keep control.  At least,
> that's the way it's going to look.  That's exactly why this particular
> case should involve giving up some control.

Not exactly.  It could certainly be constructed so that the mythical
Open Office Foundation were a mere puppet under Sun's aegis (like the 
Java "Community" Process).  But that is not a necessary resolution.

It could also take the more conventional route that the contributors and
developers self-organize into an Open Office Foundation, along the lines
of the ASF, PSF, the Mozilla Foundation and so on.  Sun would have a
majority say _today_ by virtue of its role as primary contributor, but
that would change over time as its interest wanes, or as community
interest grows.  

I would say the fact that OOo _can't_ self-organize its own open source
foundation is quite telling.  I'm not sure _what_ it tells us, but it
tells us _something_ about OOo as a project, as a package and as a
community.  Eclipse and Mozilla are similarly public/community
partnerships with broad-based project governance vs. "benign"
stewardship by a single corporate entity:

-- Adam