Hi Mathias,
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 10:47 +0200, Mathias Bauer wrote:
I'm sure that he is not naive enough to believe that the rules of the
project would be changed in a hurry just because he started his
campaign.
IMHO it's certainly worth changing the rules to meet contributors
Michael Meeks wrote:
We claim to have 15 people working on OO.o; their names are:
Michael Meeks, Radek Doulik, Florian Reuter, Tor Lillqvist, Petr
Mladek, Noel Power, Eric Ward, Fong, Jian-Hua, Hubert Figure, Fridrich
Strba, Kohei Yoshida, Jon Prior, Zhang Yun (/contract
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 12:53 +0200, Philipp Lohmann wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote:
We claim to have 15 people working on OO.o; their names are:
Michael Meeks, Radek Doulik, Florian Reuter, Tor Lillqvist, Petr
Mladek, Noel Power, Eric Ward, Fong, Jian-Hua, Hubert Figure, Fridrich
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Hello Mathias,
There is a lot of PR in this issue floating around the internet these days,
most of it coming from Sun.
Really? I think we have been very (too?) quite about this for quite some
time. IMHO there are other people who have been much more verbose (and
not
Hello Allen,
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Hello Juergen,
I deleted your message without reading it because I'm not willing to look at
anything that starts with that tone.
Please cool down. Jürgen didn't want to attack you. You should consider
that he (as well as I) are not native english speakers
Hello Juergen,
I deleted your message without reading it because I'm not willing to look at
anything that starts with that tone.
Best Regards,
Allen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
Allen,
please calm down. It is useless to end up conversations in that way.
Can you please let us know what you feel the problem is?
And sorry, but as a long time independent contributor of OOo, please be
aware that not all of us here share your opinion on Sun, the JCA, etc.
best,
Charles.
Hi Allen,
Allen Pulsifer wrote (9-10-2007 11:53) :
I deleted your message without reading it because I'm not willing to look at
anything that starts with that tone.
I can imagine that the tone Juergen started with, wasn't the most
tactical and that you didn't like it. It was probably coming
Hi Juergen,
I wouldn't discuss about [2] and [3]. They are just examples and they
have been discussing on other places.
I would like to discuss about [1] and why we are almost the same people
any year, why the number of participants doesn't grow and why large
proportion of people comes from few
Hi Juergen,
I wouldn't discuss about [2] and [3]. They are just examples and they
have been discussing on other places.
I would like to discuss about [1] and why we are almost the same people
any year, why the number of participants doesn't grow and why large
proportion of people comes from few
Hello Mathias,
There is a lot of PR in this issue floating around the internet these days,
most of it coming from Sun. Its clear to me that the goal of this PR is to
maintain the status quo, i.e., ensure that contributions to the project keep
coming in, and that the contributors sign the JCA or
Hi Allen,
please apology my beginning, it seems that it was the wrong beginning
because you haven't read the whole message ;-). But if you would know me
you would also know that i always say or write what i am thinking. I am
always very direct and sometimes people feel uncomfortable with that
Caolan McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 12:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
The one rational Simon offers that is a little bit different than the usual
is the following:
In many cases (including some very well-known open source projects) [the
JCA] also allows the original donor to offer
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 16:26 +0200, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
Caolan McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 12:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
The one rational Simon offers that is a little bit different than the usual
is the following:
In many cases (including some very well-known open
Hello Juergen, Davide, Allen, all,
Juergen Schmidt a écrit :
Hi Davide,
Davide Dozza wrote:
Hi Juergen,
I wouldn't discuss about [2] and [3]. They are just examples and they
have been discussing on other places.
I would like to discuss about [1] and why we are almost the same people
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Speaking as a community participant...
When I first became involved in OOo, I was not completely comfortable with
the license arrangement, but thought Sun should be given the benefit of the
doubt based on all of their contributions.
However, let's look at this
On 10/8/07, Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please write it more exactly: that the copyright must be shared with Sun.
For my understanding, a generic question:
If a piece of software has:
Copyright (C) 2007 Peter Janssens, Jan Peeters
or
Copyright (C) 2007 Peter Janssens
Hello Mathias,
There is a lot of PR in this issue floating around the internet these days,
most of it coming from Sun. Its clear to me that the goal of this PR is to
maintain the status quo, i.e., ensure that contributions to the project keep
coming in, and that the contributors sign the JCA or
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 12:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
The one rational Simon offers that is a little bit different than the usual
is the following:
In many cases (including some very well-known open source projects) [the
JCA] also allows the original donor to offer commercial offerings,
Hi Allen,
i don't know who you are neither do i know what your contributions to
OpenOffice.org are. Probably you would say that you never have thought
about any contribution because of the JCA and of course it's your
personal right. But on the other hand we don't know what we have missed
by
Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
On 10/8/07, Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please write it more exactly: that the copyright must be shared with Sun.
For my understanding, a generic question:
If a piece of software has:
Copyright (C) 2007 Peter Janssens, Jan Peeters
or
Hi Davide,
i think [3] is a special thing and we all agree that it is a sad story.
We should exactly identify what the problems were and should start to
work on them. Does they still exists? Or have some things already changed.
[2] is more or less around the JCA where i don't see that a
Davide,
might be worth to listen about that (at least at the beginning):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/04/open_season_four_shuttleworth/
Best,
Charles.
Davide Dozza a écrit :
Hi all,
some days ago I launched a stone into the water. I posted some
consideration [1] about the OOoCon
Hi Juergen,
I wouldn't discuss about [2] and [3]. They are just examples and they
have been discussing on other places.
I would like to discuss about [1] and why we are almost the same people
any year, why the number of participants doesn't grow and why large
proportion of people comes from few
Hi Davide,
Davide Dozza wrote:
Hi Juergen,
I wouldn't discuss about [2] and [3]. They are just examples and they
have been discussing on other places.
I would like to discuss about [1] and why we are almost the same people
any year, why the number of participants doesn't grow and why large
Speaking as a community participant...
When I first became involved in OOo, I was not completely comfortable with
the license arrangement, but thought Sun should be given the benefit of the
doubt based on all of their contributions.
However, let's look at this objectively. Here are some facts.
26 matches
Mail list logo
