Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
On 2/23/11 12:25 AM, Valter Mura wrote:
In data giovedì 13 gennaio 2011 22:53:59, Fabián Rodríguez ha scritto:
On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina
Why not license it under an appropriate lic
On 2/23/11 12:25 AM, Valter Mura wrote:
In data giovedì 13 gennaio 2011 22:53:59, Fabián Rodríguez ha scritto:
On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow
us
In data giovedì 13 gennaio 2011 22:53:59, Fabián Rodríguez ha scritto:
> On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> > On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
> >> 2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina
> >>
> >>> > Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow
> >>>
> >>> us to put
> >>
Alex.
I hope nothing too bad happened to you...
Take care
Charles.
Le 17 janv. 2011, 7:21 PM, "sophie" a écrit :
On 17/01/2011 21:14, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
[...]
> > This lawyer is busy trying to find time to get its head round the draft
> TM usage policy/guide...
Oups, I hope you're saf
On 17/01/2011 21:14, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
[...]
This lawyer is busy trying to find time to get its head round the draft
TM usage policy/guidelines...and its a very sore head at the moment
thanks to an unfortunate accident at the weekend :-/
Oups, I hope you're safe, please take care of you
Le 17/01/11 17:32, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
Hi Charles,
>
> You should also ask all the other devs now :-)
> What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on this...
>
> Best,
This lawyer is busy trying to find time to get its head round the draft
TM usage policy/guidelines.
Just signed up for the SC mailing list ill try join the next meeting if
thats possible.
On 01/17/2011 06:00 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Many of them are not here (too much traffic).
Let's see if I can raise this at one of our next SC calls. We're
really busy with other stuff, but...
best,
Ch
Many of them are not here (too much traffic).
Let's see if I can raise this at one of our next SC calls. We're
really busy with other stuff, but...
best,
Charles.
Le Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:39:13 +0100,
Jonathan Aquilina a écrit :
> The devs are more than welcome to comment
>
> What do some of t
The devs are more than welcome to comment
What do some of the big boys think?
On 01/17/2011 05:32 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Jonathan,
You should also ask all the other devs now :-)
What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on this...
Best,
Charles.
Le Fri, 14 Jan 2011
Hello Bob,
Le Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:18:17 -0700,
Robert Holtzman a écrit :
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 04:37:55PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > On 2011-01-12 12:25 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > > Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
> > > Larry Gusaas a écrit :
> > >> And please tell me, what
Jonathan,
You should also ask all the other devs now :-)
What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on this...
Best,
Charles.
Le Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:27:17 +0100,
Jonathan Aquilina a écrit :
> I know an iphone dev, and he has told me the review process does take
> time, but
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 04:37:55PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-01-12 12:25 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
> > Larry Gusaas a écrit :
> >> And please tell me, what was uncivil about my post?
>
> > The tone of your post Larry. Please re-read it.
>
>
On 2011-01-13 11:08 AM, todd rme wrote:
> and they have made it quite clear they are totally opposed to the
> existence of Libo.
When/where did they make this 'quite clear'? I seem to recall the
opposite (they were fine with it).
--
Best regards,
Charles
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail t
On 2011-01-12 12:25 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
> Larry Gusaas a écrit :
>> And please tell me, what was uncivil about my post?
> The tone of your post Larry. Please re-read it.
Fwiw Larry, I circular filed your email address a while back precisely
because:
I know an iphone dev, and he has told me the review process does take
time, but i think in time this app store will be just as good as the app
store found on the iphone. I am more then willing to head up a team to
get this ball moving in regards to getting permission from oracle to
relicense th
Le 13/01/11 23:44, Larry Gusaas a écrit :
Hi Larry,
> Make it available in the App Store. OOo was always listed in the Open
> Source software download page at Apple support. That service has now
> been replaced by the App Store.
>
I checked out the App Store the day before yesterday and was ra
Being a mac user myself, i found out about OOo through word of mouth as
well as when i started working with Linux. i found out it had installers
for other OS's and i went from there. i usually promote through word of
mouth be it mac windows Linux users.
On 1/13/11 10:53 PM, Fabián Rodríguez wr
On 2011/01/13 3:53 PM Fabián Rodríguez wrote:
There is no DRM used on the Mac OS X App Store. There is DRM on the
Apple iOS AppStore. They are two separate entities. The FSF objections
are to the DRM on the iOS AppStore and do not apply to the OS X App
Store. Of course, the FSF objects to Apple
On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
> On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
>> 2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina
>>
>>> > Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow
>>> us to put
>>> > it in the app store? would that mean we would need to remove the
>>> GPL or can
>>> >
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina
> You would still need permission even though its a fork of the original
> code?
Yes.
The LGPL license states that:
"If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a facility
refers to a function or data to be supplied by an Application that uses the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
wrote:
> Todd no there was no announcement, but why have exactly the same office
> suite out there, they might actually end up pulling the plug once LO gets
> going quite well.
Part of what they bought when they bought Sun was OOo, and they have
Todd no there was no announcement, but why have exactly the same office
suite out there, they might actually end up pulling the plug once LO
gets going quite well.
On 1/13/11 5:00 PM, todd rme wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
wrote:
If they are considering pulling t
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
wrote:
> You would still need permission even though its a fork of the original code?
That is the whole point of open-source licenses. It prevents someone
from taking a program then re-releasing it as proprietary.
Also, please put your comments
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
wrote:
> If they are considering pulling the plug on the OOo line they would be on
> our side. I think its worth a shot in my honest opinion.
What makes you think they are planning on doing this? So far they
seem pretty intent on keeping it goin
If they are considering pulling the plug on the OOo line they would be
on our side. I think its worth a shot in my honest opinion.
On 01/13/2011 01:19 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Hey Jonathan,
1) Sigrid is right, we would need to ask for Oracle to relicense.
2) The new, non-Oracle patches are
Hey Jonathan,
1) Sigrid is right, we would need to ask for Oracle to relicense.
2) The new, non-Oracle patches are however licensed under a dual (L)GPL
v3 + (note the + which allows us to upgrade) and MPL + as we found we
had several code lines written under that license inside the existing
OOo co
In all honesty would they object to it?
On 1/13/11 11:46 AM, Sigrid Carrera wrote:
Hi,
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina:
You would still need permission even though its a fork of the original code?
yes, since the original contributors agreed to use a specific license.
This cannot changed without c
Hi,
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina :
> You would still need permission even though its a fork of the original code?
yes, since the original contributors agreed to use a specific license.
This cannot changed without consent from those people.
Sigrid
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h
You would still need permission even though its a fork of the original code?
On 1/13/11 10:30 AM, Mirek M. wrote:
Hi Jonathan, everyone,
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina
Mirek LO is a separate entity from Oracle, they just forked OOo and are
taking it down a different bath with a different name.
Hi Jonathan, everyone,
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina
> Mirek LO is a separate entity from Oracle, they just forked OOo and are
> taking it down a different bath with a different name.
I know that, but most of the code of LibreOffice comes from Oracle, and
therefore if LibO wants to change its li
Mirek LO is a separate entity from Oracle, they just forked OOo and are
taking it down a different bath with a different name.
On 1/12/11 3:49 PM, Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow us to put
it in the app store? would
On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Lots of apps available can be found for free. the cost of the app is up to
> the developer if s/he want to put it up for free. I think LO could be a model
> example to other OSS projects that this is an opportunity for them to
> increase
On 2011/01/12 11:25 AM Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
Larry Gusaas a écrit :
> And please tell me, what was uncivil about my post?
The tone of your post Larry. Please re-read it.
There is nothing uncivil in that post.
Larry
--
___
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
Larry Gusaas a écrit :
>
> On 2011/01/12 11:00 AM Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Please let me reiterate, Larry, that the tone of our discussion on
> > the mailing lists should be civil. Therefore, understand that not
> > everyone shares your passion or interes
On 2011/01/12 11:00 AM Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Please let me reiterate, Larry, that the tone of our discussion on the
mailing lists should be civil. Therefore, understand that not everyone
shares your passion or interest for the Mac platform.
And please tell me, what was uncivil about my pos
Larry,
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:35:06 -0600,
Larry Gusaas a écrit :
>
> On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
> > 2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina
> >
> >> > Why not license it under an appropriate license that would
> >> > allow us to put it in the app store? would that mean we would
> >> > need to
Lots of apps available can be found for free. the cost of the app is up
to the developer if s/he want to put it up for free. I think LO could be
a model example to other OSS projects that this is an opportunity for
them to increase their following.
On 01/12/2011 05:35 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina
> Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow us to put
> it in the app store? would that mean we would need to remove the GPL or can
> it be dual licensed to go on the app store?
I'm no expert, but as
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina
> Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow us to put
> it in the app store? would that mean we would need to remove the GPL or can
> it be dual licensed to go on the app store?
I'm no expert, but as I understand it, LibreOffice is licensed und
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow us to
put it in the app store? would that mean we would need to remove the GPL
or can it be dual licensed to go on the app store?
On 01/08/2011 01:46 PM, Charles.h.Schulz wrote:
Ben,
To be frank I would be very tempted by th
Hi
Am 08.01.11 14:23, schrieb Fabián Rodríguez:
> Apple won't likely block the app until the FSF or its author (as
> happened with VLC) demands that they comply with the licenses. If/when
> that happens is another story.
Concerning VCL: "...Rémi Denis-Courmont waged a one-man campaign against
App
On 11-01-07 06:06 PM, Benjamin Horst wrote:
> [...]
> Thus, it does not appear that Apple would block LibO because of our LGPL
> license (Wesnoth is GPL v2). The FSF is very unhappy with the App Store, but
> this does not appear to be a dealbreaker if we wish to go ahead with it.
>
> -Ben
>
> Ben
Ben,
To be frank I would be very tempted by the Mac App Store. We would gain a lot
of traction and perhaps revenue. I read the links you provided with attention
but what I can gather is somewhat controversial or at least would require some
sort of legal workaround. Let me explain what I see:
On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> I was told there is an issue with mac and the GPL and LGPL licensing. not
> sure what exactly though.
Some quick reading shows the issue is not at all clear. For example, the
Wesnoth community has debated this in depth, but the ultimate res
I was told there is an issue with mac and the GPL and LGPL licensing.
not sure what exactly though.
On 1/7/11 8:26 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/07 12:57 AM Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
Someone also mentioned there are issues with GPL licensing that Apple
doesn't seem to like :-/
And the
Ok that's it last message I read on this thread
My impression
JAVA = NO APP STORE
LIBREOFFICE = JAVA
therefore (for the near future)
LIBREOFFICE = NO APP STORE
Thanks guys , I really hoped this would happen, but, alas life is tough ;)
Rogerio
2011/1/7 Robert Holtzman
> On Fri, Jan 07, 20
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:22:21PM +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> Larry,
>
> Let me remind you that we expect courtesy on our lists.
What was posted was in no way discourteous. You're interpreting
bluntness as discourtesy.
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free
I agree totally with you on the first part of your response Mirek.
On 1/7/11 7:34 PM, Mirek M. wrote:
Hi everyone,
2011/1/7 Fabián Rodríguez
On 11-01-06 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote:
I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but
se
Hi everyone,
2011/1/7 Fabián Rodríguez
> On 11-01-06 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> >
> > On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote:
> >> I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but
> >> seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total
> >> control over
2011/1/7 Fabián Rodríguez
> On 11-01-06 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> >
> > On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote:
> >> I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but
> >> seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total
> >> control over the software y
Larry,
Let me remind you that we expect courtesy on our lists.
Thank you,
Charles.
Le 7 janv. 2011, 6:55 PM, "Larry Gusaas" a écrit :
On 2011/01/07 9:38 AM Fabián Rodríguez wrote: > > You're right, at least
for now. Apple controls i...
Your unsubstantiated idle speculation is pure FUD.
Larr
On 2011/01/07 9:38 AM Fabián Rodríguez wrote:
You're right, at least for now. Apple controls its OS and its updates,
which effectively can control which apps go on your computer (or not).
IMO, it's only a matter of time before such restrictions happen, just
like iPhone and iPad (which*for now*
On 11-01-06 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
> On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote:
>> I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but
>> seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total
>> control over the software you are allowed to install on your own
>>
On 2011/01/07 12:57 AM Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
Someone also mentioned there are issues with GPL licensing that Apple doesn't seem to like :-/
And the license has nothing to do with an application installing on a Mac computer. I have
several GPL and LGPL licensed applications installed.
Lar
Someone also mentioned there are issues with GPL licensing that Apple
doesn't seem to like :-/
On 1/7/11 6:49 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/06 11:05 PM todd rme wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Larry
Gusaas wrote:
Apple does not control what software I install on my computer. Q
On 2011/01/06 11:05 PM todd rme wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
Apple does not control what software I install on my computer. Quit
spreading such BS.
They do if you are using an iPad (unless you have hacked it).
As I said, Apple does not control what software i
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
> On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote:
>>
>> I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but
>> seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total
>> control over the software you are allowed to install
On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote:
I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but
seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total
control over the software you are allowed to install on your own
computer.
Apple does not control what software I ins
58 matches
Mail list logo
