On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote: >> >>> Hi Jim, all, >>> >>> 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>: >>>> >>>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's >>>>> recommendation, than taxes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but >>>> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle >>>> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly >>>> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in >>>> a sense. Taxes were not an issue... >>>> >>> I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable": >>> >> http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/ >>> >>> TDF just refused to pay for anything which is under contract of Oracle. >>> >> >> Thx for the link. It is good to see TDF opening up regarding >> what their original request was to Oracle. Subsequent discussions, >> of course, are not known but so what. They are moot. For whatever >> reason, Oracle did not think that TDF was the right place. That >> ship has sailed. Time to figure out what to do now. >> > > I asked, and apparently there were no subsequent discussions. But I agree, > this ship has sailed and I'd be pleased to see this all move into a > podlet...
I asked as well as was told otherwise... but again, it's moot. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
