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
ward whatever the vision
for LibreOffice 4.0 happens to be.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:36
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:29:23PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I'm also suggesting it's
> /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
> openoffice.orgresolve to a working and current site without
> interruption that it deserves
> a mention (preferably a plan - yes, unusual for an
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I wo
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
>> telling TDF they have to switch to another license.
> One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF
> is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge*
> and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience.
> I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to.
This is a concise capture of a critical point.
TDF could decide to igno
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
> a need to focus *in the proposal*
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
> a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer
> deliverable from
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> And I offer a personal apology to Simon...
>
> Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the
> start of the week on offended you.
All come on now. Unless are referring to a the female portion of the
canine fami
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> And I offer a personal apology to Simon...
>
> Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the
> start of the week on offended you.
Accepted as well.
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
>> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
>> ideological division as a given...
>>
>
>
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> Which is exactly why I say "we are where we are" and we should deal with it
> even if it is to agree to disagree on some things. Can we work together and
> resolve issues so that people can enjoy using FOSS office software? That is
> really the fu
On 3 June 2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> >
> > More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
> > collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
> > ideological division as a given...
> Well, the
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
> ideological division as a given...
>
Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... th
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
> robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
>> wrote:
>> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>> >> I wouldn't be too quick to t
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
> wrote:
> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> >> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
> > related communit
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> wrote:
>>
>> What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
>> upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
>> spanning these projects (as widely as ideolo
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
>
> What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
> upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
> spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would
> definitely like to see the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
> related communities.
>>
>> If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
>> explained in the proposal
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related communities.
>
> If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
> explained in the proposal before we vote on it.
+1 (not binding)
Cheers,
Andreas
-
20 matches
Mail list logo
