On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
Hi Jim,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
Hello!
I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in
hopes that if there are questions
Hi Robert, Jim,
2011/6/5 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
Hi Jim,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
Hello!
I have also
2011/6/5 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
In your questionary, the questions to me seem to be of two kinds:
1) questions that are targeted to individuals actions (sign Apache CLA,
contribute code to Apache as well as to TDF ...)
2) fundamental questions on TDF (join Apache and
On 5 June 2011 17:31, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
2011/6/5 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
In your questionary, the questions to me seem to be of two kinds:
1) questions that are targeted to individuals actions (sign Apache CLA,
contribute code to Apache as well as to
Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid?
I don't think he is.
If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to someone
like IBM for real dollars?
How do I know that it did not happen? do you know what negotiation occurred
between Oracle and IBM, do you know the terms they
DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature
to be
but a victory is a victory. Enjoy the rare one rather than
look for next one ;)
a 'victory' ? going from a copy-left license to source-sinkhole license ?
are you sure you are posting that on the right ML, or you just enjoy rubbing
it in ?
Yeah it is a victory for IBM, no doubt... and a nice
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
Hi Jim,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
Hello!
I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in
hopes that if there are questions
Le 2011-06-05 05:04, e-letter a écrit :
DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
imminent in apache OO, they can make a
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev ljelou...@gmail.com wrote:
So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except
apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part
of ASF.
It is not clear to me what you are seeking from Oracle.
While it
Ok, information overflow. I know we're early in the stage, but I'm
a bit unsure about what I should tell people. I see a lot of
possibilities with ASF on board and as the web expertise is strong
in that camp, also the realisation of some dreams. I dunno too much
about ASF licensing, but how
On 5 June 2011 09:19, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid?
I don't think he is.
If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to
someone
like IBM for real dollars?
How do I know that it did not happen?
Because such
On 5 June 2011 10:04, e-letter inp...@gmail.com wrote:
DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
imminent in apache OO, they
Hi Robert, Jim,
2011/6/5 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
Hi Jim,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
Hello!
I have also
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@apache.org wrote:
I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is. It
is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
with the larger
Sorry if you feel that way. I stand by my PoV that what happened
is, in some ways, a victory, even if not the one that TDF ideally
would have wanted. I understand that, and not trying to minimize that
at all.
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:40 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
but a victory is a victory. Enjoy
On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Marc Paré wrote:
Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our great
product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in Oracle's hands.
Speaking for any ASF lurkers here, I can assure people that we
are not here to change
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@apache.org wrote:
...
I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is. It
is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
with the
Assuming that these are question that you are serious about
wanting answers to, I will attempt to do so.
On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
profit public
There's an important concept in Michael Meeks' e-mail that mustn't get lost:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 17:03, Michael Meeks wrote:
The problem is, that very much of our work is inter-dependent, and we
want people to be able to work all over the code, cleaning, translating
and fixing it. It
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis
simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote:
What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
Worst case: a code base that you can cleanly relicense to your choice
of license without any requirement to give anything back. This
provides an opportunity
On 5 Jun 2011, at 16:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Assuming that these are question that you are serious about
wanting answers to, I will attempt to do so.
On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
A formal, legal foundation.
I have some disagreements with some of these statements, but I am a guest
here. I would like to answer queries and concerns, rather than attempt to
change opinions. In other words, I don't see a good way to respond to this,
if that's what you are seeking.
Cheers,
-g
On Jun 5, 2011 10:16 AM,
On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@apache.org wrote:
I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is. It
is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
of the code that they
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Are you proposing that TDF could be the copyleft-preferring subsidiary of
Apache, Jim?
I'm not proposing anything. It was asked What can the Apache
Foundation provide to OpenOffice?. I answered. I've no idea
where you saw any sort of
On 5 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
Given these plain facts
Others have started with similar plain facts, but have since found it
productive to listen and even begun to indicate a willingness to
consider sharing
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
The plain fact is that Apache's rules do not allow any section of
Apache-maintained code to be licensed under copyleft licenses. That means
that groups of people who have made the the equally valid choice to have
their work licensed under
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Your participation is welcome, Sam, but statements that have as their
unspoken precondition that people with long-term choices abandon them are at
best disingenuous statements that you have personally been censoring in the
Apache forum.
Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com,
Could you trim your signature? Could you just quote relevant parts of
others' posts?
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive:
2011/6/5 Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com
There is a third option. That is that something you believe in needs
something else you don't believe in in order to be achieved. It leaves a
dilemma. Some people switched a stance of anti-nuclear power because now
they believe it's better than CO2
On 5 Jun 2011, at 16:20, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's inevitable at all, nor do I
think it the place for people to make such statements on behalf
of communities that they have, as far as I know, only limited associations
with.
Actually I am a TDF Member and have a
On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
I should think there is probably
broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 05:15:38PM +0300, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers.
In order for a podling to graduate from the Apache Incubator and become a
top-level Apache project, it must demonstrate that it has a healthy
community which will ensure
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Hey, chill. As Sam says, there's no ideology involved, just choices. The last
thing I want is an ideological debate because I already know how it turns
out. That's why I think it would be far better not to keep making proposals
whose most
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
But just
recall that even the FSF admits that AL2.0 is the best license
where free/open standards are competing with non-free/proprietary
ones.
See Bradley Kuhn's rebuttals to Rob Weir[2][3].
You should only do that when there is a
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
I should think there is probably
broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
On 5 Jun 2011, at 16:57, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Hey, chill. As Sam says, there's no ideology involved, just choices. The
last thing I want is an ideological debate because I already know how it
turns out. That's why I think it would be far
On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Sorry, but you *based* your conclusion of the inevitability of there being
2 projects on the *ideology* of copyleft vs non-copyleft.
I did that because the diversity of the world of FOSS is a clearly observable
fact. You observe a different
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals
we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate?
I've outlined two here:
On 6/5/11 6:14 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It is, agreed. Maybe I am just somewhat of an optimist
that I believe even pure idealogical stakeholders can find
common ground and that nothing is inevitable.
Hi Jim, I have posted a message on the general@incubator mailing list,
but I haven't seen it
On 5 June 2011 17:15, Sam Ruby ru...@apache.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting
proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate?
I've outlined two here:
On 5 Jun 2011, at 00:32, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Christian Lohmaier
lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com wrote:
As far as I know, there is only the intent of Oracle to
donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear statement has been
made as to what exact sourcecode
Hi,
Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch:
On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconipub...@letturefantastiche.comwrote:
Is it sure there will be a *product*?
I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there
will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product
Another alexandre...
I've been reading the discussion and i have a pragmatic question.
Why ASF doesnt join to TDF and better Why TDF join to ASF using their
code governance to develop one unique produticvity plataform called
LibreOffice and that could be used commercialy when properly
2011/6/5 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
Hi,
Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch:
On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca
Turconipub...@letturefantastiche.comwrote:
Is it sure there will be a *product*?
I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there
will be
On 5 Jun 2011, at 18:42, Greg Stein wrote:
As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no
indication either intends to change), then I believe direct joining
of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find other ways to
cooperate.
Any idea what the best venue for that
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you mean the same thing when you say symmetric as the
people here mean. As far as I can see, you are talking about the
ability to use the code being
sorry, please disregard this. I got the subject messed up somehow
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:01 PM, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you mean the
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you mean the same thing when you say symmetric as the
people here mean. As far as I can see, you are talking about the
ability to use the code being
Hi,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03:
That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
saying everyone Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
enough.
I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or anybody else. *I* certainly
said it, and strongly
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:44, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 5 Jun 2011, at 18:42, Greg Stein wrote:
As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no
indication either intends to change), then I believe direct joining
of forces will not be possible. The hope is to
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:19, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03:
That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
saying everyone Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh
have
enough.
I
On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
I'm first and foremost an end user, so I'm not concerned about the license as
far this doesn't allow corporations like IBM to keep their predatory attitude
vs end users.
So, my stance for copyleft is very practical: proprietary software
Hi Greg,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.39:
so, why don't the ASF, the Mozilla Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation and
the GNOME Foundation unite? :-)
Different goals.
that said, I think the goals of ASF - without knowing your statutes in
detail yet - and TDF differ as well. Not that we
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:12:59PM +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
I don't see how it is possible to take it all back Once licensed that code
and subsequent derivatives are not in their control. Just like LO can go on
developing as before. If they fork the project under their own new license,
yes
A reminder,about last line. In this particular case Oracle does not have
the copyrights about openoffice.
If they claim that now,they will have serious problems with other
companies for a lot of reasons...
Em 05/06/2011 16:06, Marvin Humphrey escreveu:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:12:59PM
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
Consolidation of copyright in the hands of one entity enables unilateral
relicensing. We have all just seen that in action with Oracle's software
grant of the OO.o codebase under ALv2 to the ASF, but it was also in
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
...
That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
saying everyone Do not set up your own foundation at all, we
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
I had thought you were further away...
That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...
Please see:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html
--
Unsubscribe
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-05 22.26:
That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...
Please see:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html
if you want to get a good overview on the progress, here are a few
(though
Hi all,
*please, follow up on the projects list, thanks in advance*
I would like to try to organize a first session of manual tests -
release scenarios - on Litmus [1]. Mostly to see how it goes and fine
tune what needs to be done to go further. We need to push our QA process
further and log
Marc Paré wrote:
Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our
great product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in
Oracle's hands.
We have a truly community oriented and supported product with great
licenses as opposed to a restrictive ASF product. We
Hi Sophie
Who is this directed to? Apparently it's for Developers only so why post on
the Discuss list?
I find it odd that Users are not needed in QA but this an odd community
anyway ;)
--
View this message in context:
I have been involved with OpenOffice.org since 1.1 or so, before .odf. I am
glad that Apache Foundation will have control of the code. For me
personally, the ownership of the code never caused a problem. I had good
experiences with all the Sun employees with whom I got to interact when we
moved
Hi Plino,
On 06/06/2011 02:52, plino wrote:
Hi Sophie
Who is this directed to? Apparently it's for Developers only so why post on
the Discuss list?
My mail was a bit long, I know, but if you read until the end it says
---
For testing, you don't need technical skills,
Ian Lynch wrote:
On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme lt;toddrme2...@gmail.comgt; wrote:
If that means using some licenses that are
less than ideal from a philosophy point of view then so be it.
That argument cut both way... except that apparently in your model,
'philosophies' or more exactly
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
* I find it extremely arrogant and insulting for a project that hasn't even
built anything yet to self-proclaim itself as 'upstream'.
What project is that please? I am confused.
thanks
mike
--
Unsubscribe
67 matches
Mail list logo
