On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:37, Simos Xenitellis <simos.li...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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.
How about we drop these lines of discussion, and simply follow Ross' advice and focus on "what is needed by the Incubator PMC to accept this proposal?" Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
