André Schnabel wrote: > There is one special item "Discuss and Clarify TDF position on C". Our > position on this is quite clear and has been communicated several time. > But there was a suggestion to have a discussion on this last year > (Michael Meeks to discuss with Andrea Pescetty). > Do we want to come back on this or consider it as done?
Provided that "C" means "Copyright Agreements" and that the guy is me, you can consider it irrelevant. Back in 2010, I had expressed the position that the Document Foundation might act as "Trade Unions" for developers and aggregate copyright, envisioning a future in which it had to confront Oracle and discuss licensing with it in view of a possible reunification. Now, that future vision became reality earlier this month. It is clear that the Document Foundation had already envisioned the same scenario, and as everybody (now!) knows the priority of the Document Foundation has been to stick to the licenses it had unilaterally chosen, before discussing any further options; this is perfectly understandable and acceptable of course. If this was and is the view of the Document Foundation, then the entire issue of copyright agreements becomes irrelevant. Anyway, the only occasion to use it would have been in the discussions with Oracle, but that phase is now closed. So the Steering Committee can move on and deal with more current matters. By the way, I was never approached for talks on this issue, but I wouldn't have had much more to say about this and I see no reasons for reopening issues (like licensing and copyright agreements) that have been superseded by history. Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
