On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two communities might
mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is LO/TDF might contribute to
Apache OO by
Agreed. The main problem is if say the majority of knowledgeable developers
only want their work licensed copyleft.
On 4 Jun 2011 23:50, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote:
On 6/4/2011 11:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it shoul...
The code was
That is true. There is also the possibility that there are
a set, possibly large, of knowledgeable developers who only
want their work non-copyleft. And another set that really couldn't
care one way or another. That's simply the nature of FOSS licenses.
I develop and release code under all types
On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 11:18:16 -0700
Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I've just managed to wade through some 400+ emails to this list in the last
2 days and I would estimate that less than 10 were particularly relevant to
what my
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I plan on updating the proposal on the wiki over the week-end. I'm going
to start a series of threads on various sections of the proposal that I
think are a bit thin and which I could use some help with.
For Relationships with Other Apache Products we
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
...snip...
* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
...snip...
The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark along
with a specific list of source code files.
I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the
ASF yet
101 - 106 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
