On Friday, February 27, 2015, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 25/02/2015 jonathon wrote: > >> On 23/02/15 17:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> >>> I have to state it again: this is not the way I would have written the >>> page; it is a version of the page that preserves all terms we had on >>> that page. If we agree on another version I'm very happy. >>> >> >> Is there a need/requirement to preserve all the terms on the page? >> > > An argument that was made during other discussions on this topic was that > the page had been designed to intercept web searches by people that did not > even know about OpenOffice. Now, I can understand that people who search > information about BSA audits will be relieved to discover OpenOffice and > the fact that it poses no compliance problems. I doubt that mentions of the > FSF and SFLC can be justified by the same reasons (the audience in that > case is radically different) so I have nothing against rewriting this part > avoiding to name specific entities and licenses (other than the ASF and > Apache License, of course). +1 let us get this behind us. Having the page can have a purpose, and the way you suggest to rewrite it does no harm. rgds jan i > > Jim: I've CCed you now, but if you want to be kept updated please follow > the conversation at http://markmail.org/message/j4benlcq5niden26 > > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
