Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: snip I guess a slight risk that needs to be taken care of exists in all constellations. In the worst (!) situation, Apache could die as foundation, so could TDF. For TDF, it is rather unlikely, as German foundations are built in a way they can not vanish that easily. That's why the incorporation takes so long, and that's exactly why we've voted for Germany. Once you're established, you are approved that your budgets and statutes are safe that a long-lasting foundation is nearly guaranteed. IMHO For any software foundation, legal risk is probably the most serious one faced. The question is similar to What would be if Apache Foundation stopped to exist tomorrow?. (Each member has the information required to quickly reboot an ASF clone) Sure, but what would happen to the assets, as the reboot would a different legal entity? Beyond the brand, Apache chooses to have few assets or employees (I can remember the time when we had none of either) What I want to say: I guess the theoretical risks are as high for Apache than for any other foundation, including TDF. Different organisations adopt different strategies, and this is reflect in their degree of legal risk. Apache takes IP risks very seriously and has an excellent pro-bono team together with a broader community of experts. Our framework is public and open for others to learn from. We (and some corporate players like IBM) believe that this reduces our risk to an acceptable level. Will TDF be in a position to easily clone and reboot without serious damage to the wider ecosystem? Well, normally, it is not needed, as - see above - German foundations are built in a very stable way. However, in the worst case, I think the situation would be similar to other foundations. The knowledge is public, so anyone could do what we have done. The only question is the legal assets, but that would happen to every entity and foundation. Apache would have the same struggles we would have in the very unlikely event of closing the foundation. Apache (and foundations with similar structures) are carefully structured to allow easy replacement within the ecology. But a trade-off exists and others choose differently. snip If a legal dispute bankrupted TDF, what would prevent assets transferred being sold? The law. Even with the currently existing association there are rules for what the existing property has to be used, in our case public, chartibable purposes, that serve similar purposes as we do. So, selling them to a corporation would be *not* possible when the association gets bankrupt. I guess that it's even more strict for foundations what you can do with your assets. Good :-) (worth explaining on the website since this setup isn't possible in many jurisdictions) Could you expand on the precise meaning of relicensing in this case? Basically, what you received from Oracle: Instead of LGPLv3, the code you have been granted has been (re)licensed unter the Apache license. I expect the donation to arrive at Apache using a software grant [1] (or possibly a CCLA [2]). Apache will then offer licenses to the public. Oracle need not offer the public a license. This means that well tested contractual licensing is used between Oracle and Apache whilst the unilateral public licensing is issued by a non-profit. We asked for having it (re)licensed under the LGPLv3+/MPL. Dual licensing is problematic and requires considerable bookkeeping to track provenance. AIUI TDF uses LGPLv3 (please jump in if I've misunderstood). So why did the TDF ask for a dual license? So, we didn't ask for an exclusive license, nor a copyright transfer, but rather for having the existing code licensed under a different license, just as it happened with you afterwards. (As explained above, the details were quite different.) Now, you can obtain a public license from Apache compatible downstream with the LGPLv3. If Oracle issued a public LGPLv3 license for the code covered by the Apache donation, what advantages would this have for the TDF which the public license from Apache does not? AIUI Trademarks have to be defended and maintained. A transfer therefore implies costs (above an unlimited license, say) but allows tighter control. I know, but we have the legal options of maintaining and defeating trademarks. Actually, if that side-note is allowed, I am the one who started approaching the download fraud sites back in 2008 or 2009, in my role as Marketing Project (back then) Co-Lead. So, I am not totally unexperienced in this area. ;-) So, the TDF brings existing legal experience in trademark defense. Does TDF own rights to the LibreOffice brand? Yes. LibreOffice and The Document Foundation are registered trademarks in the EU, other applications pending: http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/trademark/data/1/1/009444571 Great :-) (For the public
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-07 09.00: (I'll try to avoid asking too many questions at once) Feel free, I try to reply to all of them, if they haven't been replied in the meantime by someone else. Hard time following all mail threads. :-) meetoo 1. What would constrain this legal entity from closed sourcing these assets or selling them? Our statutes. We have binding statutes that are for fostering free office software, and we are acknowledged of being charitable. So, simply changing or closing down things would be nearly impossible. Great :-) In addition, such topics could be covered by a contract. I can imagine, without speaking officially for the German association here, that there would have been no problem in signing a contract that sets certain limitations on what could be done with the assets. Like You have to keep the assets, do not sell them, and do not make closed source out of things. If you cannot manage them at some point in the future, you have to hand them over to another entity taking care of that.. True but requires a level of trust in the corporate counter-party (for anything more than a simple and clean contract). Too often, just nothing more than a move in the game... The question is similar to What would be if Apache Foundation stopped to exist tomorrow?. (Each member has the information required to quickly reboot an ASF clone) For all these things, precautions can be taken. :) +1 Will TDF be in a position to easily clone and reboot without serious damage to the wider ecosystem? 2. What would transfer of assets achieve for the TDF that a license would not? I guess it depends on the type of the exact license. An asset transfer is more than a license, and gives more safety and stability, IMHO the choice between licensing and ownership is not so simple, and there are times when licensing has advantages... If a legal dispute bankrupted TDF, what would prevent assets transferred being sold? but depending on what is in the license, the latter one could have been enough. (So, I'd like to work towards a clearer public understanding of these essential requirements) But, we need to see two things: If you read the letter of intent, we did not ask for a copyright assignment (i.e. asset transfer) on the *code*, but rather for a relicensing of the code. Talking about a work having a license is useful short hand but I sometimes find this language confusing. More precisely but less concisely upstream producers issue licenses which permit downstream consumers to perform actions otherwise restricted by one or more IP law. Could you expand on the precise meaning of relicensing in this case? We did indeed ask for a *trademark* transfer (i.e. asset transfer), but I guess a good license could have worked as well. It's hard to predict that without knowing details, of course, but discussing always helps... :) AIUI Trademarks have to be defended and maintained. A transfer therefore implies costs (above an unlimited license, say) but allows tighter control. Does TDF own rights to the LibreOffice brand? Robert -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
Hi, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-09 12.22: In addition, such topics could be covered by a contract. I can imagine, without speaking officially for the German association here, that there would have been no problem in signing a contract that sets certain limitations on what could be done with the assets. Like You have to keep the assets, do not sell them, and do not make closed source out of things. If you cannot manage them at some point in the future, you have to hand them over to another entity taking care of that.. True but requires a level of trust in the corporate counter-party (for anything more than a simple and clean contract). Too often, just nothing more than a move in the game... I guess a slight risk that needs to be taken care of exists in all constellations. In the worst (!) situation, Apache could die as foundation, so could TDF. For TDF, it is rather unlikely, as German foundations are built in a way they can not vanish that easily. That's why the incorporation takes so long, and that's exactly why we've voted for Germany. Once you're established, you are approved that your budgets and statutes are safe that a long-lasting foundation is nearly guaranteed. The question is similar to What would be if Apache Foundation stopped to exist tomorrow?. (Each member has the information required to quickly reboot an ASF clone) Sure, but what would happen to the assets, as the reboot would a different legal entity? What I want to say: I guess the theoretical risks are as high for Apache than for any other foundation, including TDF. Will TDF be in a position to easily clone and reboot without serious damage to the wider ecosystem? Well, normally, it is not needed, as - see above - German foundations are built in a very stable way. However, in the worst case, I think the situation would be similar to other foundations. The knowledge is public, so anyone could do what we have done. The only question is the legal assets, but that would happen to every entity and foundation. Apache would have the same struggles we would have in the very unlikely event of closing the foundation. I guess it depends on the type of the exact license. An asset transfer is more than a license, and gives more safety and stability, IMHO the choice between licensing and ownership is not so simple, and there are times when licensing has advantages... Sure. The transfer of ownership in the letter of intent was one option, but for sure a license, if crafted carefully, could serve similar options. If a legal dispute bankrupted TDF, what would prevent assets transferred being sold? The law. Even with the currently existing association there are rules for what the existing property has to be used, in our case public, chartibable purposes, that serve similar purposes as we do. So, selling them to a corporation would be *not* possible when the association gets bankrupt. I guess that it's even more strict for foundations what you can do with your assets. Could you expand on the precise meaning of relicensing in this case? Basically, what you received from Oracle: Instead of LGPLv3, the code you have been granted has been (re)licensed unter the Apache license. We asked for having it (re)licensed under the LGPLv3+/MPL. So, we didn't ask for an exclusive license, nor a copyright transfer, but rather for having the existing code licensed under a different license, just as it happened with you afterwards. AIUI Trademarks have to be defended and maintained. A transfer therefore implies costs (above an unlimited license, say) but allows tighter control. I know, but we have the legal options of maintaining and defeating trademarks. Actually, if that side-note is allowed, I am the one who started approaching the download fraud sites back in 2008 or 2009, in my role as Marketing Project (back then) Co-Lead. So, I am not totally unexperienced in this area. ;-) Does TDF own rights to the LibreOffice brand? Yes. LibreOffice and The Document Foundation are registered trademarks in the EU, other applications pending: http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/trademark/data/1/1/009444571 (It still speaks of OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V. as the name change is pending at the registry court; afterwards, the trademark application will read Freies Office Deutschland e.V.) Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Volker Merschmann merschm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, 2011/6/6 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com: On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote: 2011/6/6 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com: Until the TDF has taken that last step, expect to be challenged about your readiness ;-) I'd like to take up your offer :-) But here on this list and on the understanding that we're trying to work together to assess for the public record how close the TDF is TDF is so near that it had offered help to Oracle last month: http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/ The TDF certainly seems confident. People (and corporations) are often reluctant to accept claims from campaigning organisations without public evidence. Hopefully, we might be able to work together to establish clearly and in public where the TDF is today and where it might be tomorrow. Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away (what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure, esp to an entity which was still in the process (though close!) of finalizing its foundational status... I think you have misread that. That's the way I read it too. Thanks for clarifying. There was no question for getting any infrastructure or hardware. Just the possiblity to _transfer_ the content of wikis/web etc. This is the same as with ASF now. And you oversee (as many) that there is an interim legal entity, the Freies Office Deutschland e.V.. (I'll try to avoid asking too many questions at once) 1. What would constrain this legal entity from closed sourcing these assets or selling them? 2. What would transfer of assets achieve for the TDF that a license would not? Robert -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote (07-06-11 09:00) The TDF certainly seems confident. People (and corporations) are often reluctant to accept claims from campaigning organisations without public evidence. Hopefully, we might be able to work together to establish clearly and in public where the TDF is today and where it might be tomorrow. All fine to show what TDF is - we do that oh so often. But could you pls explain what purpose this would serve in the Apache OOO project ? Thanks, -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.13: Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away (what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure, esp to an entity which was still in the process (though close!) of finalizing its foundational status... your interpretation of #3 is wrong. It reads available for transfer, and emphasizes that by into The Document Foundation's infrastructure. There is not a single word about hardware wanted. Thx for the clarification... BTW, it also mentions integration with Oracle ERP and CRM stacks Did you really want (and expect) direct access to such incredibly sensitive and important parts of Oracle's business structure? How does that help the community? It seems much more something a competing business would want. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...?
On 6/7/11 1:50 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Thx for the clarification... BTW, it also mentions integration with Oracle ERP and CRM stacks Did you really want (and expect) direct access to such incredibly sensitive and important parts of Oracle's business structure? How does that help the community? It seems much more something a competing business would want. The sentence is: This is why we welcome a technical cooperation with Oracle on the development and maintenance of connectors with the Oracle and MySQL databases as well as the integration with Oracle ERP and CRM stacks. Technical cooperation is quite a different thing from direct access. Microsoft third parties have developed a wealth of these connectors and integration features with Oracle products, which are in the interest of Oracle as well as the end user. These integration features were supposed to be part of the proprietary product Oracle Open Office, but have only been hinted on the product sales pitch and never provided by Oracle. Although I am not a developer, I imagine that in order to develop their plugins MS third parties have used some kind of APIs or SDK in order to get access to pieces of information inside Oracle database or CRM data files. Anyway, if there was something to be clarified about our document, a short email or a phone call asking for further details - instead of a prolonged we are still working on it answer - would have been a better choice. I do not think that going over our letter to Oracle with the intent of finding areas where it could have been improved does any good to the exhisting and future relationships. Oracle received this letter in late April and has never reacted, while it looks that in a week has decided for the ASF solution. Fair enough. It is rather evident that there are reasons beyond our understanding, which are part of Oracle corporate perception of TDF. Best regards. -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...?
On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Italo Vignoli wrote: I do not think that going over our letter to Oracle with the intent of finding areas where it could have been improved does any good to the exhisting and future relationships. I agree... My going over it was simply to indicate areas which I *think* (again, I have no idea, nor do a *want* to know) may have been reasons Oracle declined, since that seems a point that people are extremely curious about. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...?
On 6/7/11 3:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I agree... My going over it was simply to indicate areas which I *think* (again, I have no idea, nor do a *want* to know) may have been reasons Oracle declined, since that seems a point that people are extremely curious about. Provided that they received the letter and they never replied I think it is reasonable to state that they never considered it, because of corporate reasons we will never know. Between humans, before declining you usually investigate further and then provide a reason for declining. Otherwise, it looks like you are just ignoring (which is fine). Corporations are just not as educated as humans, and therefore do not feel they should behave following the basics of mutual respect. This is the reason why I have decided to abandon a corporate career. In addition, corporations are just too different from volunteer projects, and trying to understand a decision using a volunteer POV can only lead to severe frustrations. TDF has sent a letter to Oracle, which has been ignored. It is a fact. We decided to send it because we felt we had to try every solution, but what has happened afterwards tells us that the letter has been ignored for unknown reasons (as I am sure that Oracle will never provide any further detail). -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
Hi, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-07 09.00: (I'll try to avoid asking too many questions at once) Feel free, I try to reply to all of them, if they haven't been replied in the meantime by someone else. Hard time following all mail threads. :-) 1. What would constrain this legal entity from closed sourcing these assets or selling them? Our statutes. We have binding statutes that are for fostering free office software, and we are acknowledged of being charitable. So, simply changing or closing down things would be nearly impossible. In addition, such topics could be covered by a contract. I can imagine, without speaking officially for the German association here, that there would have been no problem in signing a contract that sets certain limitations on what could be done with the assets. Like You have to keep the assets, do not sell them, and do not make closed source out of things. If you cannot manage them at some point in the future, you have to hand them over to another entity taking care of that.. The question is similar to What would be if Apache Foundation stopped to exist tomorrow?. For all these things, precautions can be taken. :) 2. What would transfer of assets achieve for the TDF that a license would not? I guess it depends on the type of the exact license. An asset transfer is more than a license, and gives more safety and stability, but depending on what is in the license, the latter one could have been enough. But, we need to see two things: If you read the letter of intent, we did not ask for a copyright assignment (i.e. asset transfer) on the *code*, but rather for a relicensing of the code. We did indeed ask for a *trademark* transfer (i.e. asset transfer), but I guess a good license could have worked as well. It's hard to predict that without knowing details, of course, but discussing always helps... :) Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...?
Italo Vignoli wrote: On 6/7/11 3:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I agree... My going over it was simply to indicate areas which I *think* (again, I have no idea, nor do a *want* to know) may have been reasons Oracle declined, since that seems a point that people are extremely curious about. Provided that they received the letter and they never replied I think it is reasonable to state that they never considered it, because of corporate reasons we will never know. Between humans, before declining you usually investigate further and then provide a reason for declining. Otherwise, it looks like you are just ignoring (which is fine). Corporations are just not as educated as humans, and therefore do not feel they should behave following the basics of mutual respect. This is the reason why I have decided to abandon a corporate career. Corporations do not have any emotions or feelings, but the people who run them do. Perhaps there were hurt feelings at Oracle because leaving OpenOffice.org to found The Document Foundation meant that these people were dissatisfied with the stewardship provided by Oracle. Perhaps there were feelings of rejection involved here. Perhaps someone at Oracle took it personally. Sometimes people in business can be petty about such things, and from what I have heard about him, Larry Ellison might be that kind. In any case, it is now just so much water under the bridge and it is now time to just move on and forget about OpenOffice. I suspect that OpenOffice will soon become irrelevant. The Document Foundation is doing such a good job with LibreOffice that I really don't think end users will miss OOo. In addition, corporations are just too different from volunteer projects, and trying to understand a decision using a volunteer POV can only lead to severe frustrations. TDF has sent a letter to Oracle, which has been ignored. It is a fact. We decided to send it because we felt we had to try every solution, but what has happened afterwards tells us that the letter has been ignored for unknown reasons (as I am sure that Oracle will never provide any further detail). -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
(I've dropped the cross post to the Apache Incubator since I'd like to pick up just the topic of readiness) On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.39: snip This might not affect other topics, but honestly, I think the perception of what already is in existence is not clear enough for many parties on this list. :-) Hope I could shed some light on it... You very much did. Thank you! +1 Thanks! If there are questions, feel free to ask them. I elaborated on that topic so much, as I fear that there are just false rumors spreading at the moment. It is definitely not right that TDF is unable to handle things that would be required due to Oracle's new step. We *are* able to handle things, not only from the community, but also from the legal perspective. If people doubt that, I am happy to discuss this in public as well but we never have been asked these questions - it was simply presumed we weren't ready yet. Which is just wrong. Until the TDF has taken that last step, expect to be challenged about your readiness ;-) I'd like to take up your offer :-) But here on this list and on the understanding that we're trying to work together to assess for the public record how close the TDF is Okay? Robert -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
Hi Robert, 2011/6/6 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.39: snip This might not affect other topics, but honestly, I think the perception of what already is in existence is not clear enough for many parties on this list. :-) Hope I could shed some light on it... You very much did. Thank you! +1 Thanks! If there are questions, feel free to ask them. I elaborated on that topic so much, as I fear that there are just false rumors spreading at the moment. It is definitely not right that TDF is unable to handle things that would be required due to Oracle's new step. We *are* able to handle things, not only from the community, but also from the legal perspective. If people doubt that, I am happy to discuss this in public as well but we never have been asked these questions - it was simply presumed we weren't ready yet. Which is just wrong. Until the TDF has taken that last step, expect to be challenged about your readiness ;-) I'd like to take up your offer :-) But here on this list and on the understanding that we're trying to work together to assess for the public record how close the TDF is TDF is so near that it had offered help to Oracle last month: http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/ Bye Volker -- Volker Merschmann Member of The Document Foundation http://www.documentfoundation.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote: Hi Robert, 2011/6/6 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com: Until the TDF has taken that last step, expect to be challenged about your readiness ;-) I'd like to take up your offer :-) But here on this list and on the understanding that we're trying to work together to assess for the public record how close the TDF is TDF is so near that it had offered help to Oracle last month: http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/ Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away (what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure, esp to an entity which was still in the process (though close!) of finalizing its foundational status... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
Hi, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.13: Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away (what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure, esp to an entity which was still in the process (though close!) of finalizing its foundational status... your interpretation of #3 is wrong. It reads available for transfer, and emphasizes that by into The Document Foundation's infrastructure. There is not a single word about hardware wanted. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] How Close Is TDF...? [WAS Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?]
Hi, 2011/6/6 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com: On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote: 2011/6/6 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com: Until the TDF has taken that last step, expect to be challenged about your readiness ;-) I'd like to take up your offer :-) But here on this list and on the understanding that we're trying to work together to assess for the public record how close the TDF is TDF is so near that it had offered help to Oracle last month: http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/ Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away (what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure, esp to an entity which was still in the process (though close!) of finalizing its foundational status... I think you have misread that. There was no question for getting any infrastructure or hardware. Just the possiblity to _transfer_ the content of wikis/web etc. This is the same as with ASF now. And you oversee (as many) that there is an interim legal entity, the Freies Office Deutschland e.V.. Volker -- Volker Merschmann Member of The Document Foundation http://www.documentfoundation.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
