On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana
sanj...@opensource.lk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
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 on that, I'd really
On 6/5/2011 6:19 PM, 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 he...@ungoverned.org
wrote:
On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com
If IBM pulls a harmony, TDF can just use the Apache licensed code that's
available and run with it. Here the problem
currently is how to make things work if/when the podling gets accepted and
folks start contributing, stick around for a
long time with lots of good contributions from multiple
At the risk of sounding naive, why do some people continue to believe
that an Incubator list at Apache is a realistic way to get an answer
about IBM's corporate strategy? I suppose given the community history
it's certainly a controversial issue likely to get some sort of
response, I just
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:24 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM:
=
I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue
creating,
building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all
the
On 6/5/2011 5:38 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
I still think that's open for discussion. To my eyes it still makes a lot of
sense to have Apache host the parts IBM (and maybe others, although their
existence is exaggerated) need for their proprietary products, and then have
TDF maintain a consumer
On 6/5/11 3:51 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I have tried to follow as much as emails as
On 6/5/2011 11:43 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
Agreed. I wish I had a clearer idea of what constitutes a good
reason to reject an incubator proposal on principle, though - even
just a good enough reason to reject this one. As long as there is
some promise of building a community and IP / grant
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/5/2011 11:43 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
Agreed. I wish I had a clearer idea of what constitutes a good
reason to reject an incubator proposal on principle, though - even
just a good enough reason to reject this one. As long as there is
some
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
