Re: Copyleft vs Permissive

2017-01-11 Thread Dr. Michael Stehmann
Am 11.01.2017 um 22:49 schrieb Peter Kovacs: > Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I > have another point of view :-D > IMO there are a lot of points of view possible, when you are talking about copyleft. And most of these are valid, if you don't say, that one

Copyleft vs Permissive

2017-01-11 Thread Peter Kovacs
On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan: For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should have no right to own and control the products of their

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Dave
On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. > > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier > to cooperation between the

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Max Merbald
Hello, anything is possible if you want it. And if you really want it, a merger with LO is also possible. The problem is that AOO is way behind. Even if you don't want to hear it: Too little has happened over the last several years. Ages ago we discussed what to do about version 5.0 -

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Nagy Ákos
I wrote something that is not true? About the trends: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice Finantial report: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/7/7e/TDFAnnualReport2015LR.pdf https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/990-2014.pdf 2017. 01. 11. 10:21

Re: [Google+] YouTube channel tutorial request

2017-01-11 Thread Matthias Seidel
BTW: I updated the "channel art" at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5VAaY4mqQVhNe8j7fZCEfw Regards, Matthias Am 04.01.2017 um 18:15 schrieb Peter Kovacs: > Hello youtubers, > > If you look for tutorial topics I have a suggestion. > How to copy stuff in Open Office. All the options. What

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread FR web forum
TDF could be give up these copyleft licences. Maybe, we could create a petition to ask this LibO, please bring back to AL v2 licence :-) - Mail original - De: "Patricia Shanahan" À: dev@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Janvier 2017 09:44:26 Objet: Re: future of

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Dr. Michael Stehmann
Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan: > For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was > writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should > have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does > not seem very free to me. For

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Jörg Schmidt
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] > Hello, > > this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend > tasks yet. > > If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find > us. And vice > versa. > > We have talked a lot in the past. But at

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Nagy Ákos
The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF. Each developer own our part from code. And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open, with apache licence the code can be closed, like

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Matthias Seidel
The only way to stop this kind of discussion is to concentrate on the release of OpenOffice 4.1.4. We have enough code, we have enough translations. So let's move on! ;-) Kind regards, Matthias Seidel Am 11.01.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: >> From: suhail ansari

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Jörg Schmidt
The problem is another, you are trying to sow uncertainty here. This is a method I only know of LO / TDF sympatizers and only against OpenOffice. Never have I experienced the LO / TDF sympatizers attacking other Office projects. Likewise, I have not experienced the OO sympathizers try the same

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Raphael Bircher
Hi Akos Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos : Hi, it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be merged in OpenOffice. As whole package yes, but you can ask individual contributors to put there code to Apache License 2.0. The single way is that

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Dr. Michael Stehmann
Hello, this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet. If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice versa. We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again. If LO

Re: [Homepage] ApacheCon graphic/link in footer.html

2017-01-11 Thread Matthias Seidel
Hi Marcus, "technical problem" does not sound good... I enabled the box now (or better late last night... ;-) ) I think may, 16-18 is right although apachecon.com mentions 15-19. Regards, Matthias Am 10.01.2017 um 22:30 schrieb Marcus: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:04:29 +0100, Matthias Seidel >

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Patricia Shanahan
On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote: Hi, it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be merged in OpenOffice. That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have kept the Apache

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Nagy Ákos
2017. 01. 11. 10:26 keltezéssel, Raphael Bircher írta: > Hi Akos > > Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos : > >> Hi, >> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. > As whole package yes, but you can ask individual

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Matthias Seidel
Am 11.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb RA Stehmann: > Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos: >> The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF. >> Each developer own our part from code. >> >> And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the >> licence, because

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread RA Stehmann
Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos: > The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF. > Each developer own our part from code. > > And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the > licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave