On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:28 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote: > On 28 September 2011 11:53, Thorsten Behrens > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Hi Jürgen, > > > > first off, glad to hear you stay with our code & the ecosystem! :) > > > > Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > > From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer > > > valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one > > > office together. > > > > > I don't believe it's helpful to start a discussion by asserting that > > the other party's motivations are no longer valid. > > > > > But from a technical perspective it doesn't make sense to split the > > > resources in 2 groups working on more or less the same thing. > > > > > Oh, I'm perfectly with you on that one! :) > > > > > It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well > > > known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best > > > choice for our users. > > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that > > name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? > > > > Why not do like Google with Chrome and Chromium?
or why not just shake hands and part as friends. Two projects and two applications. - if AOO wants to get on desktops they need to produce an application that better addresses the needs of their target user base then LibO - if LibO wants desktops they need to better addresses the needs of their target user base then AOO. //drew
