Am 02/19/2015 08:29 PM, schrieb jan i:
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer
to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it
hopefully clear what it is.
At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now.
THANKS.
But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we
are discussing in circles:
- Who is it that do not like the content?
among others
jim who is v.p. legal and talk on behalf of the foundation in this case
myself
OK, you both are new. And (as I learned now) just after Mr. Kuhn made a
mistake. But who else? Also before Kuhn's blog post?
Sorry when I bother you all. But I don't get it that we are writing tons
of mails about some words on a webpage.
- How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online?
not a lot, but point is v.p. legal of apache feel we break rules, and that
os more important than the numbers
Sure, Jim may have a special voice/vote here. ;-)
- Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described?
I think (renark the word) that it is because we compare licences. ASF At
large do not do this kind of comparing, and definitively not at project
level.
OK, when we can nail it down to 1-2 text parts then delete them (or
better choose a wording in a more neutral form) and that's it - except
it would break the whole concept.
rob@ I am +1 on calling a vote, but I eould realky prefer we could settle
this without, a vote builds fronts and we need a lot more to work together.
I suggest:
[ ] Leave the page as it is.
[ ] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the
tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken.
[ ] Delete the entire page.
I have offered 2 solutions, including being very flexible in the wording of
the disclaimer, I will leave it up to you to either call a vote or work
with us all to find a solution.
Please suggest a compromise, that satisfies people like jim (in short keep
ASF happy) and is something you can accept. i am easy, if ASF is happy I am
happy.
Marcus
Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i:
Hi.
We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.
There are of course people who do not like the page because they would
like
another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as
the page we produce are correct).
There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily
be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO.
The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has
been added:
"
*The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or
advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of
licenses."*
Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion
of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer
and being on the bottom many do not even read it.
We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should
we
have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to
the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk
about
a lot of mails).
I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of
discussions, and would prefer to see it removed....however a statement on
top of the page saying something like:
"This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC"
would at least stop the negative discussions.
Thoughts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
