If people want, I will happily remove myself as mentor. This is supposed to
be fun and at least *somewhat* fulfilling...
I consider you an very important part of this process. Even when you
have said something wrong or have made a wrong decision (i don't know
one) you are still doing a great
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 11:09:23 AM:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org
wrote:
This is why, inside the ASF, we expect individuals to represent the
communities
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 06:31)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:07, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
[Picking a random mail in this thread]
I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
I read
Reliance on Salaried Developers
...
Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
Jim,
To put it bluntly this project needs you. I say that because of both your
attempts to engage here and the history I know you have.
It is impossible to mediate between two opposing positions without upsetting
people. I'd be worried if you were showing a bias towards one or the position.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
If people want, I will happily remove myself as mentor. This is supposed to
be fun and at least *somewhat* fulfilling...
I consider you an very important part of this process. Even when you
have said something
Cor Nouws wrote (04-06-11 01:49)
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the
press about that (at this stage).
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
Hi Robert,
I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted
to join in here:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14:
The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
copyright or code today. Apache is.
Why? Can you elaborate?
Florian
--
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
Excuse me for interrupting ...
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.
I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/
nor
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
However I
will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
2.0 is an appropriate choice:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your
statement about not talking to the press.
On 4 June 2011 11:33, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
Which is no problem for me, but obviously I
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me for interrupting ...
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.
I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
Which is no problem for me, but obviously I
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:25 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:
I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in
the OpenOffice.org
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
Simon,
Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:
potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well
as on
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing
GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 06:19:06AM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
Jagielski says what is typical for Apache is building (or even
_re-building_) communities around those codebases.
Which is true. It does not say that TDF is not able to.
...
He says that makes Apache the perfect place to help
On 4 June 2011 12:19, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
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
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi Robert,
Hi Florian
(Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)
I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to
join in here:
Just like the rest of us
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me for interrupting ...
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
LibreOffice uses a dual license
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
However I
will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
2.0 is an
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went
to a fair bit
of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on Rob's
blog and elsewhere.
And rightfully so, if your
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
statement above would need to
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
However I
will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
advancing the
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wote:
Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties,
or whatever...
There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that I have done
wrong, or did not do,
or did not due to someone's satisfaction.
If people want, I will happily
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
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
available. Until or unless
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
However I
will state
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
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
available. Until or
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote on 06/04/2011 12:22:31
AM:
From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: 06/04/2011 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
If
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33)
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your
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
Hello Robert,
2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi Robert,
Hi Florian
(Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)
Did I send you a reply off-list?
Hello Jochen,
2011/6/4 Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who
went to a fair bit
of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented
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
Hi,
On 04/06/2011 16:03, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Hello Robert,
2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkinrobertburrelldon...@gmail.com
[...]
The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an
alternative path
I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build
OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware
business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But
I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side.
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,
Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote on 06/04/2011 01:07:36 AM:
Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo
extensions? Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher,
Professional Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
Our approach is to start with the
On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi Robert,
I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to
join in here:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14:
The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of
Hi,
Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05:
In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org.
where is this different from a German entity where donations are
tax-deductible, like with the current association (which is even
accredited as especially meritorious by
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 Jun 4, 2011 9:43 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build
OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware
business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But
I wanted to first
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build
OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware
business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But
I wanted
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
On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03
On Jun 4, 2011 10:08 AM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05:
In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org.
where is this different from a German entity where donations are
tax-deductible, like
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.orgwrote:
Its seems that you have a high level of
mistrust for certain persons and are not prepared to reach out
magnanimously
to all parties in an attempt to bring them together. I see this as
creating
ongoing problems.
Most of Apache Infrastructure is based on shared resources, and our build
environments are no exception. We currently provide both jenkins and buildbot
based build systems, and the slaves naturally run jobs for several projects.
We provide access to Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, and a few
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
Hi,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-04 16.28:
Oracle America is the full name of the entity that granted us the code.
They may not have been able to get the same tax deduction donating to a
foreign entity. The tax deduction would be*considerable* given the value of
the OOo brand.
ah, sorry, then
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 Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Most of Apache Infrastructure is based on shared resources, and our build
environments are no exception. We currently provide both jenkins and
buildbot
based build systems, and the slaves naturally run jobs for
Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote on 06/04/2011 10:37:03 AM:
In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll
work
with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable
at
infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/04/2011 10:19:27 AM:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to
build
OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the
hardware
business, I might be able
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work
with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team
On 4 June 2011 12:52, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wote:
Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties,
or whatever...
There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that I have done
wrong, or did not do,
or
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
I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be taken as
negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such questions without first
understanding the consensus of the members I would be most displeased with my
Board.
To expect the TDF to treat their membership in this
I think this is a diversion.
We all know the press will choose the single sentence that will create the most
traffic. It doesn't matter if this pro or anti foo, they just want traffic.
Let's just assume nobody intended any malice. The journalists want us to fight,
it makes for better
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
On 3 Jun 2011, at 20:33, Leo Simons wrote:
Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first
arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :)
Strong +1 to that. This is a big decision, and some of us would like
to gauge reaction beyond the confines of this list
On 4 June 2011 13:37, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms
On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work
with you to
Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM:
Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be
taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such
questions without first understanding
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Most of Apache Infrastructure is based on shared resources, and our build
environments are no exception. We currently provide both jenkins and
buildbot
based build systems, and the slaves naturally run jobs for
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM:
Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be
taken as negative yet if the ASF Board
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
available. Until or unless
On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33)
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
Which is no
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
On 6/4/2011 7:37 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
It is not relevant how ASF would answer these questions.
You see, I think it is, and apparently other mentors do as well...
I'm open to to possibility that a 6-month old open source association with
a single project might have more
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
[Picking a random mail in this thread]
I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
I read
Reliance on Salaried Developers
...
Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
reason for establishing the project at Apache.
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap
that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they
don't even
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
You could ask these questions of RedHat management, or Novell management,
but in asking this of open source management suggests to me that there
is a serious disconnect in your understanding of meritocratic, open
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 vote will ultimately be on this proposal. It seems pretty clear to me that
there is a lot of emotional reaction to this but a lot of
Hello Jim,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to
scrap
that off in favor of something
On Jun 4, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who
made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we
naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be
kept, well, off
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see why some might read into those statements implications that
probably were not intended. That is the problem with perspectives :-)
I used these quote to illustrate that and to put that in parallel with
the complaint
Quoting the full context for these at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html:
The second is projects that implement free standards that are competing
against proprietary standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3
audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all
distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is
also the case that contributors of code to LibreOffice are required
Thanks Sam
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:13, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM:
Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms
I really can't see that as necessary Jim.
S.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all
distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is
also the case that
PS: As far as I can tell, what none of those distributions do in their appeals
to LGPL3 is carry any indication of where and how their source code can be
found. Naughty, naughty.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Saturday,
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 providing portions of the LO codebase as MPL binary
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 19:42)
I must have significantly misinterpreted the below:
However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
for the OO.o project in the long run, Meeks said. They are
sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that
sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-)
## Manfred
Maybe stop lurking :-) Your contributions will be valuable
On 4 Jun 2011 22:06, Manfred A. Reiter ma.rei...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-)
## Manfred
On 6/4/2011 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Our emails may have crossed in the ether. My suggestion is that I
take ownership of this question. I will state that I do not plan to
proceed via this questionnaire.
I missed the *what* you were taking ownership of :) Coolio, and thanks.
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
