Louis, Summarizing on top,
I didn't check the recent video from Bradley Kuhn. I think the objection is to the characterization of copy-left and conflation with the "cost of compliance" for commercial, closed-source software, and comparing with ALv2 in that regard. At least that is what I got in a quick scan of the legal-discuss @a.o list. On legal-discuss it was asked whether the web page was with the voice of the PMC or of an individual. I'm not sure there was a satisfactory answer. Apparently the primary concern has been addressed with the footnote. I think the concern of ASF officials is that the only constituted entity here is the Foundation. I am not certain why it is about the PMC, and it is fair to ask where AOO is of one voice. I wasn't thinking very hard about any of that. I don't think there was anything about CLAs, at least not on the legal-discuss thread. I don't follow the remark about "when the tone could affect business operations." Sorry. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 13:30 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis E. Hamilton Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" > On 30-01-2015, at 15:36, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: [ ... ] You seem to be disingenuous here, Dennis :-) Seems evident to me that speaking voice is AOO’s, not Apache’s. Which raises the question, how much rope does an Apache project have in attitudinal and tonal if not legal issues? Presumably, from the reaction so far witnessed, when the tone could affect business operations. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
