On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Allen Pulsifer <pulsi...@openoffice.org> wrote: >> - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of > a free office suite? > > It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle, > and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about that. > However, to the extent that it was driven by Oracle, that should not be held > against IBM, since IBM did not own the code and had to go with proposal that > would be acceptable to Oracle.
In the interest of full disclosure: I am an IBM employee. I am not in the division that works on Lotus Symphony nor do I have anything resembling a decision making capacity for an issue as large as this one. Nor do I speak for IBM. And finally, this clearly was Oracle's donation. That being said, it has been a rather eventful week or so for me as I have done everything I could to remove obstacles -- real or perceived -- to make this happen. And I am in a decision making capacity in the ASF. > It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that is > licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document Foundation > is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or > possibly to host a parallel project under the Apache License), then you > might be able to get IBM to join forces with the TDF. If we could agree on a common license, all sorts of frictionless exchange would be possible, and all sorts of divisions of labor could be contemplated. In fact, the division of labor could be dynamic in that we could experiment with all sorts of different arrangements and find out what works best. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
