On Jun 4, 2011 6:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
...
2. With regard to building distributions, binary libraries are terribly
awkward unless Apache were to limit its OpenOffice project to a single
platform and programming model. In contrast, LibreOffice is going full-up
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
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
Hi all,
On 05/06/2011 10:06, Julien Vermillard wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcurua...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
...snip...
* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
...snip...
The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark
I was thinking about binary-only components such as a linker library or shared
library that was under a non-Apache license but that needed to be included in
deployments of OpenOffice.org. That would require a different version of the
binary-only component for every platform environment the
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
code and it
Hi Shane,
Op 5-6-2011 6:11, Shane Curcuru schreef:
Question: is anyone here aware of any registrations of
OpenOffice.org or the logo or other related marks in other countries
besides the US?
The name Open Office has been registered in the Benelux by the Dutch
company Open Office
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 5 Jun 2011, at 04:17, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
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
Hi,
First over all, I'm not a native speaker, but I think I can answer.
Apologies if I'm off topic, this thread is extremely difficult to
follow.
Le 5 juin 11 à 09:41, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
I was thinking about binary-only components such as a linker
library or shared library
Le 5 juin 11 à 10:09, eric b a écrit :
Hi,
First over all, I'm not a native speaker, but I think I can answer.
Apologies if I'm off topic, this thread is extremely difficult to
follow.
Le 5 juin 11 à 09:41, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
I was thinking about binary-only components such
Hello all;
I spent some time reading these email archives to get a better
understanding of the issues. To me it seem obvious this effort should
join with the LibreOffice community.
Why open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of
software to be made proprietary in the future
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
I've lost the thread on this,
it's noisy and open :-)
(but it's good to factor out new threads with good subjects)
but I thought that one observation was about the dependencies in
OpenOffice.org (and
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 01:07, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote:
Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo extensions?
Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, Professional
Template
On 5 Jun 2011, at 09:09, Ross Gardler wrote:
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 4 Jun 2011, at 23:31, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
For
example, with Lotus Symphony we've added a mechanism to integrate web
widgets.
I'd like to know a little more about this.
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
I extracted the text from the Grant. It needed some minor cleanup
(for example, to remove page numbers). It is possible that I
introduced errors in the process, but that seems unlikely given how
clean this data was. In any case, in the event that there are any
differences the original grant is
Hi Keith,
Convincing IBM to
make GPL their official free license would be useful evangelism. Who
is working on that?
I would like to see ASL as official free license, not the GPL. Anyway
IBM is huge and they do some cool stuff and sometimes they don't.
LibreOffice is a success, and way
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,
thank you for the list. From a first glance it looks like that this is
exactly the
same set of sources that is already available in the OpenOffice.org
repository.
I do not want to imply that this is too much or too little, just a FYI
for those interested
and to lazy to compare for
Sophie Gautier wrote:
Hi all,
On 05/06/2011 10:06, Julien Vermillard wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Shane Curcurua...@shanecurcuru.org
wrote:
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
...snip...
* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
...snip...
The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that
Hi all,
I have tried to follow as much as emails as possible but it's
overwhelming. Anyway I feel that several questions do not longer
belong to the pre-incubation phase but should be clarified after we
have accepted the podling. Many questions are around Can/Should we
have a second office
Hey all,
I would like to add myself to the OOo podling proposal as a mentor and
help. I am not good with all that licensing/trademark stuff but there
will be plenty to do.
In additon I would like to add myself to the list of initial
committers. I am not sure how much work I really can do as a
I'm aware that Sun successfully challenged a problematic third party
registration in Brazil just as the acquisition was going through. It may be
worth early investigation in case the registration on Sun's behalf was not
then completed; OOo had serious issues in Brazil over many years because of
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Again are we able to vote on the podling? If no, please specifiy why?
Not just yet. I don't want anyone to feel that we rushed this. It
has been less than four days. A number of threads are still active
You are
Not just yet. I don't want anyone to feel that we rushed this.
Oh, i didn't want to rush
If that progress can be made in less than 24 hours, imagine what the
next 24, 48, or even 72 hours will bring.
Compared and good :-)
My expectation is that the right time to hold a vote will be by the
Hello,
If you need more mentor, I can help.
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://www.linkedin.com/in/olamy
2011/6/4 arv...@cloudera.com arv...@cloudera.com:
Hi All,
It has been a week since the proposal was submitted. Responses to the
proposal so far have been very
The only widget's I used with Lotus Symphony are widgets similar to
[1]. Not sure whether it would be possible to use iWidgets originating
from Lotus Mashups or even OpenSocial Gadgets in a similar way like
they could be consumed by Rational Team Concert [2].
[1]
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-04 16.28:
snip
Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
recommendation, than taxes.
+1
I tend to agree.
IMO it's all about governance.
By my count, only 8 of the 33 proposed committers have ICLAs on file:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal
While there is no obligation to send such in prior to a vote on
whether or not to establish an incubating podling around this
proposal, it is encouraged. You can find the
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in
on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was
Saturday :-)
- Original Message
From: Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 11:43:47 AM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Not just yet. I don't want anyone to feel
Hi Rob,
I don't want to leave this unanswered, although I very likely cannot
provide the answers
you like to get ... (steering-discuss in cc, so that other SC memebers
might agree or
disagree)
Am 04.06.2011 02:09, schrieb robert_w...@us.ibm.com:
If someone on the list from TDF is authorized
2011/6/5 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
In your questionary, the questions to me seem to be of two kinds:
1) questions that are targeted to individuals actions (sign Apache CLA,
contribute code to Apache as well as to TDF ...)
2) fundamental questions on TDF (join Apache and
FYI- here's a link to the Harmony proposal:
http://s.apache.org/KPG
- Original Message
From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 1:01:38 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
- Original Message
From:
I say that the sooner one can move to uni-directional flows with the
bi-directionals out in customization and adoption layers, if anywhere, the
better. It is difficult to conceive of any other way to get on top of the
refactoring that is surely required as part of making a manageable, layered
Hi Ralph,
Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic
on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now
focusing in on topics more relevant to this list.
In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be
raised here...
On 6/5/2011 3:30 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
Why open source advocates at IBM would stand up for the right of
software to be made proprietary
Hi,
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-05 16.41:
Non-profit foundations are constrained to act in certain ways. For
example, it is hard for either the Apache or the Free Software
Foundations to close source donated code.
that's the same for a German-based foundation, and exactly the same
On 06/03/2011 07:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
No, they don't. But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the historic
opportunity to change their license to the Apache License, which makes it
much easier to (quoting you, now), cooperate with ASF to make the two
projects work as harmoniously as
On 06/02/2011 09:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
south in OOo, but before TDF was formed, Oracle had done what it
just did: donate the code and the trademark to the ASF.
If that had happened, would those of you behind TDF still
have
On 06/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This
is about working together. This is about building a developer
and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip.
Jim, please be aware that OOo end user community is just huge, but
I have lurked at the mailing list over the last four days, as I was away
on a short break. Using a smartphone has not made my life easier, but I
have been able to read most of the relevant messages.
I am a founding member of TDF, and a member of the SC, but first and
foremost I am an end
This isn't helpful Bill IMO. Lotsa people have acculturated
to the FSF view of software licensing, and no amount of arguing
will change their mind.
We have to accept that some people within libreoffice will just
be completely turned off to the idea of collaborating with IBM
for the sole purpose
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:20, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
...
Just to drag the point here from the other thread where it was made, the
problem is less the size of the code (although it is enormous and will make
a great stress test for the SVN team :-) ) and more the need for frequent
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
...
That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
saying everyone Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
enough.
I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or
On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in
on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was
Saturday :-)
It has been said that Apache is a developer-centric org, and
relative to other orgs that is probably not too far off. However
OOo's user community will be important for us to preserve,
nurture, and grow as we start moving the services over to equipment
managed by the ASF.
If the concern is about
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in
on topics more
On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 10:01 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
snip
Personally I have no idea how my daily workload will be affected by dealing
with OOo's infra requirements. If it just means dishing out dedicated
resources
and setting up end-user services, that
not necessary,
NRJ
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
I really can't see that as necessary Jim.
S.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:19, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03:
That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
saying everyone Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh
have
enough.
I
Some of the Wave capabilities would be helpful off top of head.
NRJ
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 5 Jun 2011, at 04:17, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Although it is still a daunting list (over 100 items), it is interesting to
grep the list for .mk files. This will show some places where some
third-party components seem to be introduced (e.g., zlib.mk). I'm not sure
where the build process is handled and what the tooling requirement is. I
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:24, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
...
What I am still waiting to hear on are:
1. The amount of
Thanks for the input Drew. FWIW the Infrastructure Team abides
by the same rules as any other project at Apache- volunteers are
always welcome, and the more you do (well) the more karma you
will gain within Infrastructure.
It would be great if people who have root access to any of the existing
Totally offtopic, but
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:59, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
2. The amount of work that will be required to rework dependencies.
Not a blocker for starting incubation. Keep in mind that the podling may
elect to release via the libreoffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
No, we don't need the comprehensive list to start.
OK, that's good. It will be worth gathering a group of experts to build a
comprehensive view. I suggest that include LibreOffice developers too.
After all that, then we can
Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM:
Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558
Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future,
depending on how far you get ;-)
Please do check
Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 07:30:43 AM:
.
.
.
So, after having read hundreds of emails discussing the merits of
different licenses and processes, concentrating on the geography where
the code should live (basically, US vs EU, or Delaware vs Germany), I am
André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net wrote on 06/05/2011 12:17:40 PM:
Hi Rob,
I don't want to leave this unanswered, although I very likely cannot
provide the answers
you like to get ... (steering-discuss in cc, so that other SC memebers
might agree or
disagree)
Am 04.06.2011 02:09,
Hi,
Am 05.06.2011 20:24, schrieb Simon Phipps:
I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that
are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are
they, and how much of a problem will that be?
I've been discussing this privately with some folk, and while
On 5 June 2011 20:04, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
So I agree that supporting end users is critical, but I think the way that
this is done in practice, does not necessarily require great centralized
planning.
I'd say too much centralised planning for end user support is probably a
backward
Hello Simon,
On Sunday 05 June 2011, 15:58, Simon Phipps wrote:
While the extensions in particular are a concern (plenty of us will be
horrified to lose the Presenter Console from Impress for example), it's
also important to get the work that was in progress internal to Sun on
core code
Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01
PM:
This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for
entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be
answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this
proposal would be
I don't think there's any question at this point that
there will be a peaceful coexistence between LO and
Apache OO. Most of us in the IPMC tho are trying for
a better pooling of resources than to simply have 2
competing brands.
Pragmatic developers will want to see the general decisions
and
On 5 June 2011 18:47, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be
raised here...
But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try
Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote on 06/05/2011 03:57:05 PM:
To bridge that gap will require trust bonds to be built on
both sides. Generosity with the use of the OOo mark on our
part combined with generosity from TDF regarding build/distribution
resources is just a first step in
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
...
That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
saying everyone Do not set up your own foundation at all, we
Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the
project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor
or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project
seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified.
- Original Message
From: robert_w...@us.ibm.com
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
I had thought you were further away...
That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...
Please see:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html
On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I have tried to follow as much as emails as possible but it's
overwhelming. Anyway I feel that several questions do not longer
belong to the pre-incubation
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-05 22.26:
That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...
Please see:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html
if you want to get a good overview on the progress, here are a few
(though
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete
against another.
And I am puzzled how you don't accept that open source *allows*
forking and all that stuff, but that doesn't mean that competition is
necessarily
Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:22:35 PM:
Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the
project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor
or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project
seriously will be discounted by me until that is
Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with
your general aptitude or social skill level. By all means,
if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be
delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as
the org exists.
- Original Message
From: Keith
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:04 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM:
Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558
Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the
Hi all.
This is my fist post here, been lurking from day one.
As a user I am trying to understand somethings that are going on here.
1: LibreOffice was forked due to the way OOo was being handled by
Sun/Oracle.
2: Last month, Oracle stated that OOo would be turned over to a
Foundation to
Sorry for the mistype on the subject. :(
Andy Brown wrote:
Hi all.
This is my fist post here, been lurking from day one.
As a user I am trying to understand somethings that are going on here.
1: LibreOffice was forked due to the way OOo was being handled by
Sun/Oracle.
2: Last month, Oracle
From: Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: 06/05/2011 04:34 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
We should also remember that, with Oracle abandoning OO, we are being
used to facilitate their
Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 04:49:20
PM:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete
against another.
And I am puzzled how you don't accept that open source
On 5 June 2011 21:59, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
It is amazing how much paperwork is involved, at a large corporation, to
enable such things.
Good reason to set up your own company ;-)
- Original Message
From: Andy Brown a...@the-martin-byrd.net
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 5:18:30 PM
Subject: Questions for the cheap seats.
Hi all.
This is my fist post here, been lurking from day one.
As a user I am trying to understand
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
to accept OO we should consider
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with
your general aptitude or social skill level. By all means,
if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be
delighted to serve them up to the public
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:21, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
to accept OO we should
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF
and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms. Instead they
worked out terms with us. We aren't all that picky about
new initiatives, that's why we have an
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com wrote:
Concerning the extensions, by reading the file Sam Ruby uploaded, the
following
extensions are in the grant:
snip
Thanks, I'd missed those. Reassuring :-)
I don't see the MySQL
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
Am 05.06.2011 21:34, schrieb André Schnabel:
Hi,
Am 05.06.2011 20:24, schrieb Simon Phipps:
I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that
are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are
they, and how much of a problem will that be?
I've been
- Original Message
From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 6:12:14 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired
Hi Luke, *,
No glue where to put in this so I choose this thread.
A short introduction:
I'm Friedrich Strohmaier, long term OpenOffice.org community member
active (since ~ 2004) mainly in german language DVD project
(infrastructure architect and worker) in OOo times until some days in
december
Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:21:06 PM:
I personally don't need anything sorted out before the project
enters incubation. All I care about is whether the community will be
able to effectively deal with it or be blocked by it. That just
requires some idea of
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
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I
could be wrong.
I don't work for IBM but I do work for a corporation that uses a similar
business
Am 06.06.2011 00:28, schrieb Simon Brouwer:
Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef:
Hi Ralph,
Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the
traffic
on this list has settled
-Original Message-
From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 6 June 2011 7:32 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Your input on apache.org lists
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (05-06-11 23:25)
So, it does not logically follow that if a proposal at Apache is rejected
that we go to TDF/LO.
After all, why would you ?
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
-
To
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote:
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
license - everything else
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept
voluntary contributions. Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository
looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that. What we're
hoping
- Original Message
From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 6:45:15 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice LibreOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
We only benefit if the code is
Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06
PM:
I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I
could be wrong.
And I support 100% your right to have that opinion and to
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
