On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
> mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
>
> This is what I entered into the wiki:
>
> The following mailing lists:
>
> oo-...@incubator.apache.org - for
Greg Stein wrote on 06/05/2011 07:44:19 PM:
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 18:18, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <
> > ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >...
> >> I don't see the MySQL Connector module there
> >> http://hg.services.openoffi
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 01.48:
>>
>> Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of
>> Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license?
>
> I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mai
Hi I want to know if there is any formal clearance on the way OpenOffice.org
ought to be reffered as.
Since the adquisition of Sun by Oracle, they start re-inciting misquotations
of OpenOffice.org as "OpenOffice" even later they modified StarOffice as
"Oracle Open Office"
As OpenOffice.org was tr
Hi,
Niall Pemberton wrote on 2011-06-06 01.58:
But please do elaborate on why IBM prefers a new project here rather
than contributing to TDF/OO - I am very interested to know.
I would be interested, too.
And before you talk about stability, safety and track-record, please
read these mails on
On 6/5/11 7:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hallwrote:
I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then try
to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers have a vision
for where they want to go, even though they may be
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:48 AM, wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 07:02:02
> PM:
>
>> >
>> > Otherwise this is like the Baptists telling the Methodists that they
>> > cannot have a church of their own in town, because the Baptists want
> to
>> > recruit a larger choir.
>>
>> It is cl
On 6/5/11 7:38 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 6/5/11 6:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S.
Hall wrote:
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice i
I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
This is what I entered into the wiki:
The following mailing lists:
oo-...@incubator.apache.org - for developer discussions
oo-comm...@incubator.apache.org - for Subver
Hi,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 01.48:
Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of
Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license?
I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail to this list, but you
didn't reply so far. So, if you could elaborate o
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
>>
>> What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You
>> just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's
>> couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then
>> there r
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
>>
>> What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You
>> just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's
>> couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then
>> there r
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
> I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then try
> to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers have a vision
> for where they want to go, even though they may be starting from the same
> place.
>
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 07:02:02
PM:
> >
> > Otherwise this is like the Baptists telling the Methodists that they
> > cannot have a church of their own in town, because the Baptists want
to
> > recruit a larger choir.
>
> It is clear from IBM switching its efforts from Harmony to O
Sublicensing and how it relates to the original source
bits and contributions based on those bits is a complex
issue. The license on those bits doesn't change simply
because you slapped a different license on the work as
a whole.
In any case I fail to see how this line of inquiry is of
any benef
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 18:18, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <
> ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>...
>> I don't see the MySQL Connector module there
>> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/file/DEV300_m106/mysqlc
>>
>> Another importan
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
>>> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great succ
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility
>>
>> Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails.
>
>
> What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You
> just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's
> couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then
> there really is no point to further discussion.
>
Joe Shafer w
On 6/5/11 6:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
license - everything else ab
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
>>> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great succ
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Please, before you post here could you get some understanding of the ASF?
>> The Apache Software Foundation doesn't "pick" anything.
>
> I realize that everyone makes their ow
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
>> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't
>> IBM want to take part when theres a great
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
>> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't
>> IBM want to take part when theres
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't
> IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in
> existence?
Did you not read my
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't
> IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in
> existence?
>
I am pretty s
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
> Please, before you post here could you get some understanding of the ASF?
> The Apache Software Foundation doesn't "pick" anything.
I realize that everyone makes their own choice, it just seems that
Java is the dominant language. Whereas
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:04 AM, wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:45:16
> PM:
>
>> > I'll lend a voice to the contrary.
>> >
>> > I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to
> the
>> > incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying topull
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 PM, wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06
>> PM:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
>>> collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete.
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
>>> wrote:
>>>
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyle
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility
>
> Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails.
I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, th
Keith,
You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension about how the ASF works.
The ASF did not 'choose Java.'
The ASF provides a legal and technical infrastructure for human beings
to collaborate. It asks them to work within certain principles of
governance and, indeed, licensing.
Funny thing,
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
>>
>> It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ?
>
> Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on
> my laptop or server.
> http://projec
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own.
>> That "universal donor" condition places lots of restrictions on our projects,
>> but somehow they manage to r
It is naive to think IBM is bound by the GPL simply
because that's the license java is being offered to the public.
No doubt IBM has access to more favorable terms so
as to continue offering their competitive java executable
under terms largely of their own choosing.
Religion and business decisi
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:45:16
PM:
> > I'll lend a voice to the contrary.
> >
> > I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to
the
> > incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying topull
away
> > developers from another community doing s
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own.
> That "universal donor" condition places lots of restrictions on our projects,
> but somehow they manage to release useful software.
It is an interesting analogy, bu
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 PM, wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06
> PM:
>
>>
>> I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
>> collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I
>> could be wrong.
>>
>
> And I support 100% your right t
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:05, Friedrich Strohmaier
wrote:
> So one question (probably already asked): what is the timeframe between
> proposal and decision for accepting the "podling".
> Will there be enough time digging the mails and maybe comment
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have tried to follow as much as emails as possible but it's
>>> overwhelming. Anyway I feel that several question
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
> It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ?
Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on
my laptop or server.
http://projects.apache.org/indexes/language.html
Apache is clearly useful to
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06
PM:
>
> I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
> collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I
> could be wrong.
>
And I support 100% your right to have that opinion and to support whatever
open so
- Original Message
> From: Keith Curtis
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 6:45:15 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >
> > We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept
> voluntary contributions. Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository
> looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that. What we're
> hoping for is to attract d
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
>>> license - everything else about them is great. When deci
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (05-06-11 23:25)
So, it does not logically follow that if a proposal at Apache is rejected
that we go to TDF/LO.
After all, why would you ?
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
-
To unsubscrib
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 6 June 2011 7:32 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer
> wrote:
> > Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impress
Am 06.06.2011 00:28, schrieb Simon Brouwer:
Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef:
Hi Ralph,
Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the
traffic
on this list has settled down
On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
> collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I
> could be wrong.
I don't work for IBM but I do work for a corporation that uses a similar
business mo
Hi Sam,
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 16:00)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, wrote:
If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
n
Ralph Goers wrote on 06/05/2011 06:21:06 PM:
>
> I personally don't need anything "sorted out" before the project
> enters incubation. All I care about is whether the community will be
> able to effectively deal with it or be blocked by it. That just
> requires some idea of how big a problem i
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01
> PM:
>
>>
>> This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for
>> entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be
>> answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecti
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>
> IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
> license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
> to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos
> interests is worth splittin
Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef:
Hi Ralph,
Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the
traffic
on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now
focusi
Hi Luke, *,
No glue where to put in this so I choose this thread.
A short introduction:
I'm Friedrich Strohmaier, long term OpenOffice.org community member
active (since ~ 2004) mainly in german language DVD project
(infrastructure architect and worker) in OOo times until some days in
december 2
- Original Message
> From: Keith Curtis
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 6:12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF
> > and Oracl
Am 05.06.2011 21:34, schrieb André Schnabel:
Hi,
Am 05.06.2011 20:24, schrieb Simon Phipps:
I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that
are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are
they, and how much of a problem will that be?
I've been discussing
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <
ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Concerning the extensions, by reading the file Sam Ruby uploaded, the
> following
> extensions are in the grant:
>
>
>
Thanks, I'd missed those. Reassuring :-)
>
> I don't see the MySQL C
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF
> and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms. Instead they
> worked out terms with us. We aren't all that picky about
> new initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process
> t
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:21, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
> license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
> to accept OO we should consider whether that and fa
Hi Simon,
Am 05.06.2011 20:58, schrieb Simon Phipps:
While the extensions in particular are a concern (plenty of us will be
horrified to lose the Presenter Console from Impress for example), it's also
important to get the work that was in progress internal to Sun on core code
features when the p
Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF
and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms. Instead they
worked out terms with us. We aren't all that picky about
new initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process
to ferret out sustainable activity from those that aren't.
I'm
On 5 June 2011 22:29, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
> > From: Andy Brown
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 5:18:30 PM
> > Subject: Questions for the cheap seats.
> >
> > Hi all.
> >
> > This is my fist post here, been lurking from day one.
> >
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with
> your general aptitude or social skill level. By all means,
> if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be
> delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as
> the
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating
- Original Message
> From: Andy Brown
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 5:18:30 PM
> Subject: Questions for the cheap seats.
>
> Hi all.
>
> This is my fist post here, been lurking from day one.
>
> As a user I am trying to understand somethings that are go
On 5 June 2011 21:59, wrote:
It is amazing how much paperwork is involved, at a large corporation, to
> enable such things.
>
Good reason to set up your own company ;-)
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 06/05/2011 04:49:20
PM:
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, wrote:
>
> > I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete
> > against another.
>
> And I am puzzled how you don't accept that open source *allows*
> forking and all that stuff, but th
> From: Phil Steitz
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/05/2011 04:34 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
>
> On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > We should also remember that, with Oracle abandoning OO, we are being
> > used to facilitate their business relatio
Sorry for the mistype on the subject. :(
Andy Brown wrote:
Hi all.
This is my fist post here, been lurking from day one.
As a user I am trying to understand somethings that are going on here.
1: LibreOffice was forked due to the way OOo was being handled by
Sun/Oracle.
2: Last month, Oracle
Hi all.
This is my fist post here, been lurking from day one.
As a user I am trying to understand somethings that are going on here.
1: LibreOffice was forked due to the way OOo was being handled by
Sun/Oracle.
2: Last month, Oracle stated that OOo would be turned over to a
Foundation to ru
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
> Keith Curtis wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM:
>
>>
>> Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
>> http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558
>>
>> Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future,
>> depending on how f
Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with
your general aptitude or social skill level. By all means,
if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be
delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as
the org exists.
- Original Message
> From: Keith Curti
Joe Schaefer wrote on 06/05/2011 04:22:35 PM:
>
> Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the
> project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor
> or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project
> seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified.
>
Joe, i
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> This isn't helpful Bill IMO. Lotsa people have acculturated
> to the FSF view of software licensing, and no amount of arguing
> will change their mind.
>
>
> We have to accept that some people within libreoffice will just
> be completely turn
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
>
> others, "Free/Libre" software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work
> is ever "Free/Libre". There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought,
> and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the two
> of us can.
The f
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> IMO the only negative thing then about LibreOffice is the copyleft
> license - everything else about them is great. When deciding whether
> to accept OO we should consider whether that and facilitating BigCos
> interests is worth splitting
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, wrote:
> I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete
> against another.
And I am puzzled how you don't accept that open source *allows*
forking and all that stuff, but that doesn't mean that competition is
necessarily good, or just felt as
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 lenghty
On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have tried to follow as much as emails as possible but it's
>> overwhelming. Anyway I feel that several questions do not longer
>> belong to the pre-incubation phase but sh
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
-
Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the
project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor
or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project
seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified.
- Original Message
> From: "robert_w...@us.ibm.com"
> To
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
> 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 alreadyh have
>> enough."
(FWIW I aimed
Joe Schaefer wrote on 06/05/2011 03:57:05 PM:
>
> To bridge that gap will require trust bonds to be built on
> both sides. Generosity with the use of the OOo mark on our
> part combined with generosity from TDF regarding build/distribution
> resources is just a first step in the chain.
>
I agr
On 5 June 2011 18:47, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
> "one true license"... but I think there is one interesting point to be
> raised here...
>
> But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try
> to be the pre
I don't think there's any question at this point that
there will be a peaceful coexistence between LO and
Apache OO. Most of us in the IPMC tho are trying for
a better pooling of resources than to simply have 2
competing brands.
Pragmatic developers will want to see the general decisions
and dire
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01
PM:
>
> This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for
> entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be
> answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this
> proposal would be because it would be
Hello Simon,
On Sunday 05 June 2011, 15:58, Simon Phipps wrote:
> While the extensions in particular are a concern (plenty of us will be
> horrified to lose the Presenter Console from Impress for example), it's
> also important to get the work that was in progress internal to Sun on
> core code fe
On 5 June 2011 20:04, wrote:
So I agree that supporting end users is critical, but I think the way that
> this is done in practice, does not necessarily require great centralized
> planning.
I'd say too much centralised planning for end user support is probably a
backward step. We do certifica
Hi,
Am 05.06.2011 20:24, schrieb Simon Phipps:
I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that
are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are
they, and how much of a problem will that be?
I've been discussing this privately with some folk, and while we'
André Schnabel wrote on 06/05/2011 12:17:40 PM:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I don't want to leave this unanswered, although I very likely cannot
> provide the answers
> you like to get ... (steering-discuss in cc, so that other SC memebers
> might agree or
> disagree)
>
> Am 04.06.2011 02:09, schrieb rober
Italo Vignoli wrote on 06/05/2011 07:30:43 AM:
.
.
.
> So, after having read hundreds of emails discussing the merits of
> different licenses and processes, concentrating on the geography where
> the code should live (basically, US vs EU, or Delaware vs Germany), I am
> asking a very simple q
Keith Curtis wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM:
>
> Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
> http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558
>
> Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future,
> depending on how far you get ;-)
>
Please do check back in a year
I can say that we're not currently doing OpenSocial in Symphony
desktop, though it considered by us to be a strategic standard. We've
done some conceptional work on how OpenSocial could be used in the context
of editors. There are some very cool things that could be done in this
area.
My ma
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
Hi Jim,
Am 03.06.2011 21:35, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an
excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and
TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution.
Maybe a stupid question, but what should TDF actually build and distrib
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> No, we don't need the comprehensive list to start.
>
OK, that's good. It will be worth gathering a group of experts to build a
comprehensive view. I suggest that include LibreOffice developers too.
> After all that, then we can go back to O
Totally offtopic, but
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:59, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>...
>> 2. The amount of work that will be required to rework dependencies.
>
> Not a blocker for starting incubation. Keep in mind that the podling may
> elect to "release" via the libreoffice infrastructure, which giv
101 - 200 of 263 matches
Mail list logo
