Noel J. Bergman wrote (07-06-11 02:03) Michael Meeks:
"I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run."
You:
I agree; you draw the same inference that I do: he means that a non-copyleft license is the reason for (predicted eventual) failure.
Is 'Not likely to be a good home' the same as 'failure' ? Sure not in this case. It just means that the Apache solution does not cater for an important part of the community.
That attitude is most likely why (IMO) the "obvious" candidate wasn't used when Oracle decided to transfer OpenOffice.
Even more speculations, LOL And OT (interesting how this whole subject drives me/you/others this route).
Licensing matters. IBM and others prefer an Open Source license, which allows a level playing field, rather than the inequity of GPL+proprietary, but they are not interested sharing everything.
A know discussion indeed. Cheers, -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
