On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote: > On 6/6/11 11:26, Simos Xenitellis wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Richard, * >>>> >>>> 2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz<phil.ste...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> Disclaimer: I work for Oracle, but certainly don't speak for them and I >>>>> knew nothing about this other than what i've read on these mailing >>>>> lists... >>>>> >>>>> However, it seems like we have lost sight of the fact that TDF split >>>>> the >>>>> community from OOo. Sure, Oracle is the perceived villain and TDF the >>>>> perceived good guy, but it doesn't change the fact that OOo created the >>>>> community in the first place. >>>>> >>>> Fact: Your employer provoked the split, by a absolute >>>> "non-communication" on the existing mailinglist. >>>> Now, to say that TDF has split the Communtiy is dishonest! >>> >>> Forking splits communities. Whether you feel you had a justified reason >>> for >>> doing so does not change this fact. I am not weighing in on whether it is >>> right or wrong in this case, since I think that is immaterial to where we >>> are now. >>> >> That's an example of denial. I do not see a conductive environment here >> if such attitudes are tolerated. >> >>> I am only going by the "facts" as presented on the various Apache mailing >>> lists. If it is true that TDF was engaged by Oracle/IBM before the Apache >>> proposal, but failed to come to terms, then I cannot see how one can >>> claim >>> that the Apache proposal was merely an attempt to split the community. >>> >> You should read more about free and open-source software, from diverse >> sources. >> Get a lwn.net subscription. >> >> Similar example, there was XFree86 long time ago that behaved just >> like the Oracle developers. >> Then, it was forked into X.Org and everyone moved to X.Org. >> XFree86 is a distant memory. >> > > Ok, forget the first part of what I originally said, since it doesn't really > matter and apparently it prevents any discussion of the second part... > > The second part was, was TDF actually engaged and failed to come to terms or > not? That is what I've read, so I accepted this as true. >
Double fault. I suppose you rather wanted to say “TDF actually engaged [with Oracle] [but the negotiations] failed to [to reach an agreement]”. My personal interpretation: 1. Oracle wanted to give away OpenOffice.org, even transfer the copyrights. 2. The TDF is really happy to receive OpenOffice.org, as a copyleft project (LGPLv3+MPLv2). 3. [lots of cheap speculation, 1p each] There might be an agreement between IBM and Oracle/Sun for access to the OOo source code for the proprietary Lotus Symphony, so Oracle had to oblige to IBM and go to the Apache Foundation. Or, less interestingly, ODF/OOo is a huge investment inside IBM that they would rather not relinquish control and ability to create proprietary products. 4. A lot of people unhappy. Simos --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
