On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.13:
Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I
would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away
(what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure,
esp to
Hello Jim,
Le Tue, 7 Jun 2011 07:50:42 -0400,
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com a écrit :
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.13:
Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I
would guess that Oracle had issues
On 06/02/2011 03:40 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Florian Effenbergerflo...@documentfoundation.org wrote on 06/02/2011
06:39:12 AM:
This would not only be about reinventing the wheel, but also about
splitting the community, leading to disadvantages for end-users,
contributors, and
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/02/2011 09:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Hi Italo
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2011 08:02, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
AIUI the TDF uses the LGPL. Like the Apache License (AL), the LGPL
also allows proprietary software to be built on top. So, why would you
break your rule for a TDF project but not an ASF one?
It
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/06/2011 19:22, Sam Ruby wrote:
Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and
I read it as a bona fide attempt by IBM to shove the project down the
throat of The Apache Foundation.
I hope we don't need to deliberate for
Florian,
Yes, I see the licensing topic and that there are different views on that.
However, I don't know if that requires to set-up all community efforts a
second time. Simon posted one possible creative solution. Setting up a
parallel project IMHO is wrong.
-Can you help me to understand this
- Original Message
From: toki toki.kant...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 6:25:30 AM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2011 08:02, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote
On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
things.
Carrots and sticks.
Is Apache historically flexible in this area? I had the
From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 10:04:17 AM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2011 13:58, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
things.
ROTFLMAO
At best, you are incredibly naive. Those policies will
: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2011 08:02, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
AIUI the TDF uses the LGPL. Like the Apache License (AL), the LGPL
also allows proprietary software to be built on top. So, why would you
break
On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:40 AM, toki wrote:
ROTFLMAO
At best, you are incredibly naive. Those policies will stop the
companies for all of one picosecond, if that long.
ladies and gentlemen, we have another troll...
Please don't feed.
Hi,
Kevin Lau wrote on 2011-06-06 15.35:
-Can you help me to understand this Simon posted one possible creative
solution?
It seems the discussion is making progress. I like to think this is
appropriate to be seen in Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are
we now?) thread than here.
Hi Jim, all,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com:
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
On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
Hi Jim, all,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com:
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
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
Hi Jim, all,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com:
On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do
Volker Merschmann wrote:
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 agreement... IBM may have strongly
suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
a sense. Taxes
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
Hi Jim, all,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com:
On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Volker Merschmann wrote:
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 agreement... IBM may have strongly
suggested the ASF as a
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.20:
I replied on the TDF ML about #3 which, from my reading (and
from what I have been told by entities both within and outside
of Oracle) requested the infrastructure which was later
clarified to mean servers, various hardware, access to
private
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 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.
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:05, Friedrich Strohmaier
damokles4-asf_li...@bits-fritz.de wrote:
So one question (probably already asked): what is the timeframe between
proposal and decision for accepting the podling.
Will there be enough time
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
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
--
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
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?
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
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 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
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
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 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 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
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 2:59 PM, Luke Kowalski wrote:
The following project is being sent in as an incubator candidate.
regards
luke
Okay,
First, I've been reading the talking points going back and forth on this
for about 1-2 days now. And there are some valid concerns.
(1) The project as a whole is LARGE.
On 03/06/2011 04:07, James Kosin wrote:
(2) The licensing is also an issue, and a serious one at that. When a
project goes into Apache the entire project needs to be signed over by
all supporters and all code either signed over by all the copyright
holders or the copy-protected code removed.
Hi James,
Le 3 juin 11 à 05:07, James Kosin a écrit :
On 2:59 PM, Luke Kowalski wrote:
The following project is being sent in as an incubator candidate.
regards
luke
Okay,
First, I've been reading the talking points going back and forth on
this for about 1-2 days now. And there are some
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote:
snip
On the spirit of better 'ask for fogiveness than ask for permission'
I added my name to the proposal.
:-)
:-)
Robert
-
To unsubscribe,
(3) There is even talk as to why? I'm also curious as to why they would
need or want to transfer the project to Apache.
Only the person who made that decision knows the answer, and if you ask
them, you might get an answer, and it might even be the real answer. But
you never know.
I will
When this question comes up I've been asking the commenter to give a
reasoned estimate for how
many volunteers will be needed. I'm generally seeing that 20 core
developers are needed for project
maintenance. Some suggest more is needed for incubation, but I think this
might be a shifting
On 3 June 2011 14:31, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
(3) There is even talk as to why? I'm also curious as to why they
would
need or want to transfer the project to Apache.
Only the person who made that decision knows the answer, and if you ask
them, you might get an
On 03/06/2011 14:53, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
It has been suggested
that volunteers, working on their own time, are sufficient for other
projects, so the ASF likes to see that. IMO, that is not going to cut it
with the OpenOffice code base. With the OpenOffice code base, you need a
minimum core
On 03/06/2011 15:01, Ian Lynch wrote:
So the safest community strategy is to develop community driven business
models that can sustain the project. I said this back in 2004 and went off
to do it because of no understanding in the community leaders or Sun at the
time. If 10% of the effort put
On 03/06/2011 16:09, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gardlerrgard...@apache.org wrote:
This is why, inside the ASF, we expect individuals to represent the
communities interests not their commercial or their employers interests.
It is difficult to get a man to
Can we launch the Apache Sausage Project?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/06/2011 16:09, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gardlerrgard...@apache.org wrote:
This is why, inside the ASF, we expect individuals to
Hello everyone,
and thanks for the feedback to my initial mail. I've read many other
messages and blog postings, and would like to focus on just a hand full
of points that I think are crucial. Everything I leave out I do not
leave out because I consider it unimportant in general, but because
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here
[snip]
I hope I replied to all questions asked. If I missed something, this was not
on purpose, so feel free to ask again, and I will
- What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
a free office suite?
It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about that.
However, to the extent that it was driven by Oracle, that
Eh? I thought we were already a sausagefest?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:16, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Can we launch the Apache Sausage Project?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/06/2011 16:09, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Fri,
Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
AM:
It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
is
licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document
Foundation
is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache
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 interests not their commercial or their employers
interests.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
- What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
a free office suite?
It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
and you probably won't get either Oracle or
On 6/3/2011 10:20 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others
can comment
much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play
together, and what
ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to replace their original
LGPL license
Hi Florian,
I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
at Apache or any other entity.
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure
On 3 June 2011 17:16, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 02/06/2011 14:43, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Brouwersimon.o...@xs4all.nl wrote on 06/02/2011 09:21:53 AM:
snip
What isn't clear to me are things like the following:
1) A strong QA member, who does manual
Ian Lynch wrote:
Noel J. Bergman:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF should certainly be
On 3 June 2011 18:21, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote:
Noel J. Bergman:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being
transferred) for everyone's good.
And as a tangible, valuable asset, the ASF cannot, as a 501(c)3
non-profit just give it away to just anyone... in general,
the
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Hi Florian,
I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
at Apache or any other entity.
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:50, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
all
of the contributions it
, and the new
stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
under the mark.
- Original Message
From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
Community
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related communities.
If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
explained in the
On 6/3/2011 12:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
collaborate once
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
out his position. As I read it, we could license
the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
for, as Simon put it, business as usual distributions.
If we
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
out his position. As I read it, we could license
the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
for, as Simon put
Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 2:12:03 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
Community?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
all
of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF
@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
Community?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Hi Florian,
I do see with great concern
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
the podling.
These are decisions the podling should be making.
They can only make those decisions if they know they have to make them. I
think it's
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. Yes, I
am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the
list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. It would
be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to
relicense all of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license
agreement, so is unable to relicense
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:27, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I think you need to allow a little time for people to read what has been
written, absorb and reflect on it, and react appropriately. And I'm not
(just) talking about ASF members--I'm talking about the potentially larger
community. Rushing things will not
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I
Whoops. Forgot to copy the list.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
No; there are some good
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim.
Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am
here on the list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and
misrepresented just for showing up.
This email has no place on this list. Take
, and the new
stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
under the mark.
- Original Message
From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.
...
Shane Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add
yourselves to the
1 - 100 of 253 matches
Mail list logo
