Hi Simon,
Simon Brouwer wrote on 2011-06-18 17.48:
Have a look at the first sentence on the homepage. It simply states that
TDF is a Foundation, while strictly spoken, it isn't (yet). The lack of
clear information about this on the website might lead outsiders to
suspect that TDF want to
Hi,
Simon Phipps wrote on 2011-06-18 20.15:
The project names LibreOffice and The Document Foundation are registered
trademarks of their host, [http://www.frodev.org Freies Office Deutschland
e.V.], a non-profit organisation registered in Germany. The respective logos
and icons used by
Hi Christian, All,
At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi Allen, *,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer
pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
[...]
I don't know what vision IBM has for the project. I don't know what code
contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they
Hi Christoph, *,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be wrote:
At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
Hi Christian, All,
At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi Christoph, *,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be wrote:
At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
Hi Christophe, *,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Christophe Strobbe
christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be wrote:
At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be wrote:
At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier
2011/6/22 Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org:
I checked those files as well. They are all 'noarch' (do not contain
compiled programs; No Architecture),
and contain the same .png branding images.
The license not only covers the code, also the images. So if those
images are in the program, the
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:18:34 +0200
Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org wrote:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box
which says that if we are interested in the source code, we should
read a specific Wiki page,
for example
Manfred Usselmann wrote:
I see a problem here. Usually GNU/Linux distributions make
modifications to the original source code. That means that the *real*
source code will be the one from your distro and not the one you can
download from the LibO website, hence the information will be
2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
specific Wiki page,
for example
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AvailabilityOfSourceCode
I
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
2011/6/21 Jesús Corriusje...@softcatala.org:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
specific Wiki page,
for example
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sveinn í Felli svei...@nett.is wrote:
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
2011/6/21 Jesús Corriusje...@softcatala.org:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
says that if we are interested in the source code,
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 12:11, skrifaði Sveinn í Felli:
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
2011/6/21 Jesús Corriusje...@softcatala.org:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About
dialog box which
says that if we are interested in the source code, we
should read a
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 12:46, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sveinn í Fellisvei...@nett.is wrote:
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
2011/6/21 Jesús Corriusje...@softcatala.org:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Sveinn í Felli svei...@nett.is wrote:
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 12:46, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sveinn í Fellisvei...@nett.is wrote:
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
2011/6/21 Jesús
I checked those files as well. They are all 'noarch' (do not contain
compiled programs; No Architecture),
and contain the same .png branding images.
The license not only covers the code, also the images. So if those
images are in the program, the source code must include them.
That's why the
On 2011-06-18 5:39 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
And there is no better way to do this than have the 'git repositories'
of the LibreOffice source code.
You were correct earlier - he is merely pointing out that nowhere in the
license agreement (I haven't read it so am not making the same claim)
Dennis, Tanstaafl,
I take your point. Users that have 3.3.2 installed can only get the code
for 3.3.3 from the website. As discussed above, I think this meets the
spirit of the license but not the specific letter. Simon's idea about
downloading the repo at the 3.3.2 marker is a great one, but
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:22 PM, John LeMoyne Castle
lemoyne.cas...@gmail.com wrote:
Dennis, Tanstaafl,
I take your point. Users that have 3.3.2 installed can only get the code
for 3.3.3 from the website. As discussed above, I think this meets the
spirit of the license but not the specific
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
specific Wiki page,
for example
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AvailabilityOfSourceCode
I see a problem here. Usually GNU/Linux
On 18/06/2011 09:39, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
The spirit does go well beyond the letter.
Ideally, the 'git repositories' should be what everyone gets, rather
than a source code snapshot that has no source change history.
A couple of years ago I sent a question to FSF about meeting source code
-Original Message-
From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 17:44
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL
enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a
much
healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
the content and they are responsible for the content on
the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure
at all.
Op 18-6-2011 12:35, Florian Effenberger schreef:
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
the content and they are responsible for the content on
the site. It says
Simos Xenitellis wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Ignoring the repetition on who is entitled to source code and how they are told
about it, I would like to know the answers to some very specific, tangible
matters closer to home. My
On 18 Jun 2011, at 11:35, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
the content and they are responsible for the content on
the
- Original Message
From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com
On 18 Jun 2011, at 11:35, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
:
[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote:
...
The key thing being that person. That person is most likely not You,
the developer who
://nabble.documentfoundation.org/OFF-TOPIC-about-GPL-enforcement-Was-Re-tdf-discuss-Re-Libreoffice-Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3074299p3075368.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines
Hi Allen,
So - first, I've enjoyed interacting with you over many years around
OO.o / LibreOffice :-) and I value many of your insights.
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 10:43 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
..
I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it.
- Original Message
From: plino pedl...@gmail.com
BRM wrote:
Directly from the FSF, authors of the GPL. You must have a copy of the
written
offer in order to be entitled to receipt of the source.
On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
The overlap between TDF ASF's goals for an office product (modulo
enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.
I disagree... competition implies a winner and a loser...
in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market
that no one can enforce that law. But it is
still breaking the law even if you get away with it.
Let's keep the discussion realistic (or end it).
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/OFF-TOPIC-about-GPL-enforcement-Was-Re-tdf-discuss-Re-Libreoffice-Proposal-to-join
- Original Message
From: plino pedl...@gmail.com
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 10:12:01 AM
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re:
[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
@BRM sorry to burst your fantasy
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
The overlap between TDF ASF's goals for an office product (modulo
enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.
I disagree...
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are
bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that
doesn't make them ideal.
I'm not sure about that... Some forks are good, some are
bad. It's
- Original Message
From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
The overlap between TDF ASF's goals for an office product
(modulo
enabling 'mixed-source')
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have
been a
necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
revisionist history.
LO was a fork, but that was the for many months ago.
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 08:46 -0700, Keith Curtis wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have
been a
necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
revisionist
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it.
...
Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he received
from Customer E which matches what Group C provided to Customer E.
I think
- Original Message
From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it.
...
Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com
...
Your views are not mainstream; if you want to gain traction, you should make
the effort
to subscribe to the gpl-violations.org mailing list and
: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 13:49
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re:
[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM, BRM bm_witn
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Ignoring the repetition on who is entitled to source code and how they are
told about it, I would like to know the answers to some very specific,
tangible matters closer to home. My question is basically
@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement
(Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
[ ... ]
I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2
:31
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL
enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
OpenOffice))
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
[ ... ]
I
Greg Stein wrote:
how can you say that Apache
removes rights from people's contributions? As a developer, you
still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
doesn't take anything from You.
Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can see that :)
Compared to GPL (which
On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
...
End users do not care about
who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc. They
just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
needs.
Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are
There are end users that care of freedom in a broad sense. I'm one of
them, using Linux-based systems since late 90s :)
And we aren't so few, because the number is growing and specially in
this worldwide economical crisis. You can see by objective stadistics
that the adoption of FOSS is bigger in
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to
- Original Message
From: plino pedl...@gmail.com
Greg Stein wrote:
how can you say that Apache
removes rights from people's contributions? As a developer, you
still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
doesn't take anything from You.
Easy. Even
Hi Allen,
While I am rather tired of this combative thread of discussion and think it is
way overdue for it to stop, you make some statements that can't be left
unchallenged.
On 16 Jun 2011, at 15:43, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Hello Thorsten,
I do not agree with your
On 6/16/11 4:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
So my all means, continue forward with your decision that your personal
story is what really matters. That is your prerogative. Meanwhile, the
LibreOffice project will never be what it could have been. The opportunity
that has been lost will never
BRM wrote:
Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could
take a
GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally
to
itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole.
Likewise, it could also distribute that same project
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice project
is a competing project. You simply chose to view it that way.
Simon Phipps wrote:
The main proposer of the project, Rob Weir of IBM, clearly stated his
intent for it to be
a competing project - he
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:58, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
You could have also
been one of those persons with a seat at the table, and together, we would
have had twice the voice as Rob Weir.
Excuse me? What are all the contributions I am making on that list? Chopped
liver?
S.
--
Unsubscribe
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
by now that
it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
and are working from
the inside rather of the outside. You could have also been one of those
persons with a seat
On 16 Jun 2011, at 17:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
by now that
it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
and are working from
the inside rather of the outside. You
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
Thorsten
Augustine Souza wrote:
On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
...
End users do not care about
who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc. They
just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
needs.
Painting quite a
- Original Message
From: plino pedl...@gmail.com
BRM wrote:
Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could
take a
GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally
to
itself without ever contributing back to the
As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:27, plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
how can you say that Apache
removes rights from people's contributions? As a developer, you
still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
doesn't take anything from You.
Easy. Even a
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra pie...@zanstra.eu wrote:
As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my
Greg Stein wrote:
As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
This is why I think the statement removes rights from people's
contributions is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
of.
GPL does
Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
This is why I
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
GPL you MUST
Greg Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra pie...@zanstra.eu wrote:
As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
the cloud. I was used to getting no response
16, 2011 07:18
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
...
End users do not care about
who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc
: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 16 Jun 2011, at 17:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
by now that
it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
and are working from
+1
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:37
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra pie...@zanstra.eu
@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
As Ben has explained later in this thread, you
- Original Message
From: todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 3:13:15 PM
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
OpenOffice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Ben
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:49 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote:
So as Greg said, who has the rights (per the GPL) to receive the source is not
necessarily the same as the community. The only people that have rights to
receiving the source are the ones that the product was specifically
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license
that requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with
the changes to my code that they make. ...
PS: It is the case that neither the GPL nor APLv2 have such a
compulsory condition
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote:
...
The key thing being that person. That person is most likely not You,
the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
[ ... ]
Wrong. OOo, TDF/LO, etc may be making a public release. IBM, for example, may
not.
They are only releasing to people who _pay them_ for the product. _ONLY_ those
people (the ones they specifically distributed the product to) are required
- Original Message
From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 6:31:25 PM
Subject: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re:
[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
The seeds of that fork were germinated in the Go-Oo project, which
created patches and enhancements that were not contributed back to
the official OOo distribution. That became a full fork when the
LibreOffice project was started by importing all of the OOo source
code
Thorsten Behrens wrote (15-06-11 09:50)
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
The seeds of that fork were germinated in the Go-Oo project, which
created patches and enhancements that were not contributed back to
the official OOo distribution. That became a full fork when the
LibreOffice project was started by
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
creating a new version of the source code and making changes that
they did not contribute back to the official distribution.
I think this is the most serious accusation and yet nobody bothered to
comment...
I'm confused on how a modification can be contributed back if
Hi Greg,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-14 17.09:
It is simply that newbie's have NO UNDERSTANDING of this. Florian had
to explain all the details because they are not on the website.
I guess the truth lies in between. :-)
Indeed, we seem to lack some comprehensible page directly reachable with
On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
\
I also make more posts because I'm amazed that some leaders in our
movement with the pedigree of IBM are actually hindrances. I see a story
worthy of the New York Times. In fact, I have a connection ;-)
And I'm surprised that some leaders
May I suggest we call time[1] on this discussion please?
S.
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Time%20Gentlemen%20Please
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
May I suggest we call time[1] on this discussion please?
+1
S.
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Time%20Gentlemen%20Please
- Sam Ruby
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
- Original Message
From: Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-14 17.09:
It is simply that newbie's have NO UNDERSTANDING of this. Florian had
to explain all the details because they are not on the website.
I guess the truth lies in
Hi,
BRM wrote on 2011-06-15 15.47:
should be updated to reflect the legal reality that while TDF is being setup it
is an sub-entity of FroDeV; listing out who specifically owns the trademarks,
etc. That would go a long way in saying TDF is or is backed by an actual legal
hm, isn't this the
Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
the content and they are responsible for the content on
the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure
at all.
On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Florian
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
...you don't discuss e.g. trademark issues on a public list, if you want
to stand a chance actually obtaining it.
I can see how you might believe this, but I'm not sure it is grounded in
fact or experience.
Hi Allen, oh, I was referring to
] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
OpenOffice
Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
the content and they are responsible for the content on
the site. It says nothing at all about the legal
Il 15/06/2011 17:44, Allen Pulsifer ha scritto:
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
...you don't discuss e.g. trademark issues on a public list, if you want
to stand a chance actually obtaining it.
I can see how you might believe this, but I'm not sure it is grounded in
fact or experience. In fact,
Davide Dozza wrote:
Sorry Allen but you are in contradiction. Before you say Regardless of
who's fault and at the end
it seems you are accusing TDF to be the cause of the community fracture.
I made no accusations and assigned no fault. I'm also not interested in
assigning fault or blame.
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal
the rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come
over to a different
Hi Allen, *,
Allen Pulsifer schrieb:
On that point, let me be clear: There are
millions of potential users for OOo, LO, and open document formats.
Many of those potential users work in companies, government agencies
and other organizations that routinely trust Microsoft, Oracle, IBM
and
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 17:53, Thorsten Behrens
t...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
...
Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come
over to a different project, that likely noone here is really happy
with, that was setup as a fait acompli, marketed as the natural
upstream,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 15:05, David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz wrote:
Hi Jim, BRM,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 00:43, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
There was,
and still is, the perception that TDF is an official, fully-
setup, self-controlled and self-existing foundation (similar
On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote:
Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition.
What does it say about collaborating with others? Anything? (serious
question, I have no idea).
S.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote:
Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition.
What does it say about collaborating with others? Anything? (serious
question, I have no idea).
In essence, as a
On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:54, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote:
Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition.
What does it say about collaborating with others? Anything? (serious
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
