On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Thorsten Behrens < t...@documentfoundation.org> 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 the other party's motivations are no longer valid. > then please forget it and don't put too much energy in the interpretation. Perhaps i have chosen the wrong words to underline my impression of it. I should have say that i believe ... > > > 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? > how are other Apache projects find there way in a Linux distro? For AOO it can be probably handled in the same way. For other binary downloads it probably make sense to have one and the same binary. It's much easier to coordinate when bugs are reported for the same thing. If you want to talk about using the brand name than it is probably different and we shouldn't discuss this on this thread but should open a new discussion. We should really talk about the possibilities of a reunification in the sense to provide the best for our users and to bundle the resources for the same goal (i believe that we have the same goal) Juergen
