On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
not an appropriate choice in
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Is there
Hi Sam,
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 16:00)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, a.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
Is there any reason to believe that
I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this
as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense.
Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org /
LibreOffice code legally usable within IBM Lotus Symphony is to use a
non-copyleft license such as
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
So my question to IBM is:
Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if
only parts of it) ?
While I work for IBM, I don't work for that part of IBM. That being
said, I do believe that we
Andreas,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes
binaries available for free:
http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
Although you can download IBM Lotus Symphony for free it is
The reason for my questions is that I hope that answers might in some
way potentially help to avoid separate code bases for OpenOffice.org /
LibreOffice or at least make it possible to avoid that for parts of the
code.
Some kind of reasonable relation between Lotus Symphony and
Openoffice.org /
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartza.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
not an appropriate choice in this situation?
Yes. As
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartza.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version
Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
not an appropriate choice in this situation?
Yes. As expressed by many on this list and
On 4 June 2011 13:47, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
not an appropriate choice in this
Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote on 06/04/2011 09:10:05 AM:
So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code
they
own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of
view
but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an
Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die.
Cheers,
Andreas
---
Am 04.06.2011 15:10, schrieb Ian Lynch:
1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo.
...
Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient
support and
stagnates, TDF
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartza.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License,
On 06/04/2011 09:40 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die.
Which is a possible consequence of any software...
How many times can we go around in circles? I agree with Ian. Accept
that there are two communities and move on either
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'd be satisfied to merely not have the project's potential existence
portrayed as a disease that must be eradicated from the face of the earth.
This type of rhetorical flourish does not lead to mutual cooperation.
Take it
Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
While other choices may make sense depending on the
specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.
I do not know if that is a valid perspective or not, but I think that
the
dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:53:54 AM:
Andreas,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but
makes
binaries available for free:
Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote on 06/04/2011 06:24:07 AM:
I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this
as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense.
Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org /
LibreOffice code
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
While other choices may make sense depending on the
specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.
On 4 June 2011 15:46, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
While other choices may make sense depending on the
specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is
not a value judgement.
Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way
round
Fact: TDF have some very able people some of
On 4 June 2011 16:54, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is
not a value judgement.
Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not
23 matches
Mail list logo
