On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:51 +0100, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
The project simply don't need people like you who has
probably never
contributed one line of code but are very good in this kind
of useless
discussion.
I must of missed this email (I did notice Michael's reply), but really, I
All,
Time out.
This flame war is not really a discussion any longer on Butler Office.
It's become a free for all with fire. We all have better things to do.
So: enough blather. No more waste of time. This thread is cut.
Louis
On 2008-02-09, at 24:01 , Michael Meeks wrote:
On Fri,
Hi
On 2008-02-09, at 01:12 , sophie wrote:
Hi all,
I answer here but this is not an answer to Michael's mail and this
is why I top post.
Please all, there is no need for more provocations. The world is not
perfect, but it can be worse and it has been in the past. May I
remember you that
Hi Juergen,
I really did not want to step into this thread, but:
On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and
should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation
doesn't change.
Sorry,
Sorry, but this is a really dangerous attitude. Please don't feel
offended,
but it very much reminds me what we used to have in our country in the
communist era. You don't like it here? Emigrate. And don't be
surprised
if you get shot during that.
Please emigrate to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave
the project
and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the
situation doesn't change.
This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole
reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to
Hi all,
I answer here but this is not an answer to Michael's mail and this is
why I top post.
Please all, there is no need for more provocations. The world is not
perfect, but it can be worse and it has been in the past. May I remember
you that we didn't have the JCA at the beginning of the
Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Hi Juergen,
I really did not want to step into this thread, but:
On Thursday 07 February 2008 23:22, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave the project and
should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the situation
Hi Mathias,
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 16:05 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
I don't want to kill the thread - I'm not even empowered to do that. :-)
Good 'oh :-) personally I think the discussion is helpful. Jurgen is
right, of course, that we discussed this 3 months ago, and that there
has
I see that Allen wants to continue in developing the project and
product, so please everyone lets Allen do it...
That would be great. As soon as the project is ready to accept LGPL
contributions, then we can make that happen.
All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave
the project
and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the
situation doesn't change.
This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole
reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get free
Hi Mathias,
So - since you want to kill the thread, lets try to do that; but first
I must address this:
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 23:48 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
What makes you think it could be anything else? Wow, how easy it is to
get some public interest. It's enough to give others
Michael Meeks wrote:
So - since you want to kill the thread, lets try to do that; but first
I must address this:
I don't want to kill the thread - I'm not even empowered to do that. :-)
Please see at the end of the mail what I wanted to see stopped.
Unfortunately, reading back,
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
What I would like to consider common sense tells me that of
course you continue to be the owner of the code you
contributed, Caolan continues to be the owner of the code he
contributed...
Apparently you have not read the terms of the copyright assignment.
I think Frank
What I would like to consider common sense tells me that of
course you continue to be the owner of the code you
contributed, Caolan continues to be the owner of the code he
contributed...
Apparently you have not read the terms of the copyright assignment.
2. yes, FSF doesn't accept e.g. non-paper-worked contributions to
free software it maintains, e.g. Emacs.
The obvious point, if we must belabor it, is that an organization like FSF
would never take an open source program to which it held an assigned
copyright and re-license it under a
i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-)
Three month ago or so we had more or less the same
discussion. I thought
the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is
necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun would misuse the copyright.
Thank you for
Allen Pulsifer wrote (7-2-2008 22:48)
the means you are using to change the situation (flooding
dev@ list with offtopic) are wrong.
There is nothing off-topic about this discussion. It is highly relevant to
every developer who is not also an employee of Sun Microsystems.
Hmm, I always
The intent is not to mislead, but present the reality.
I would argue that talk of Joint, and Shared in copyright
assignments (by
contrast) is to market the unpleasant fact with meaningless
friendly sounding terms :-) ie. the plain truth is perhaps
not quite as obvious as you
the means you are using to change the situation (flooding
dev@ list with offtopic) are wrong.
There is nothing off-topic about this discussion. It is highly relevant to
every developer who is not also an employee of Sun Microsystems.
Hi,
i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-)
Three month ago or so we had more or less the same discussion. I thought
the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is
necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun would misuse the copyright.
The Butler
On 7.2.2008, at 23:47, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-)
Three month ago or so we had more or less the same
discussion. I thought
the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is
necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun
When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the
Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell
the right to relicense his/her contribution under other
licensing terms.
This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to
parties that might not want to
Allen,
Le 5 févr. 08 à 21:00, Allen Pulsifer a écrit :
Heck, even the FSF does that...
You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an
open
source project unless it is given an assignment of copyright that
allows it
to license the contribution under any terms it wants,
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/assigning.html
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html
Martin
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Heck, even the FSF does that...
You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an open
source project unless it is given an assignment of
25 matches
Mail list logo
