On 02/11/2011 Martin Hollmichel wrote:
So what ASF needs to do here for a 3.3.1 release is to set up the DNS
entry to a new server.
Besides these infrastructure considerations, is the Oracle build
infrastructure still available? If a 3.3.1 release is distributed in
binary form, it would be
Am 11/06/2011 01:50 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
On 02/11/2011 Martin Hollmichel wrote:
So what ASF needs to do here for a 3.3.1 release is to set up the DNS
entry to a new server.
Besides these infrastructure considerations, is the Oracle build
infrastructure still available? If a 3.3.1
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Oct 25, 2011 2:01 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
Thank you Pedro for the very well thought out and politely presented
explanation of your point. It's very helpful to have this kind of honest
and detailed
I'd like to return this thread to the original topic.
Martin,
Have you any further thoughts on Shanes comments below (I'm aware there was
a response from you later in the thread but it got lost, I've come back to
this point to get close to the root of the thread and as far away as
possible from
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2
for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge
advance to get a bit nearer both camps.
Given licenses are the expression of the ethos of a community, it's
disingenuous
On 25 October 2011 11:28, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2
for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge
advance to get a bit nearer both camps.
Given
Hi Simon;
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Ethos is
something that goes well beyond a license, and once you
read the iCLA its not an imposible thing to ask ( you
signed it), and its surely not what SUN had in place.
That said, and its something I have argued about
publicly with
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2
for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge
advance to get a bit nearer both camps.
Given
Thank you Pedro for the very well thought out and politely presented
explanation of your point. It's very helpful to have this kind of
honest and detailed discussion, especially when tempers run high, and
doubly so when there's such a clear (and unfortunate) distrust between
AOOo community
I'm at a dinner so my apoligies for the top-post, but really, I'm trying to
help Pedro (and now it seems you) see things from /outside/ the Apache
worldview and understand why the mistrust is brewing. I can recidte the
Apache mantra too, it's just no-one here needs to hear it any more :-)
--
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2
for stuff in the core package,
--- On Tue, 10/25/11, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
LO had no choice but to take LGPL. So more
necessity/inertia than
ethos. And -- according to Michael -- when it
thought that MPL might be more acceptable TDF was
quick to add MPL for new code
contributions. This
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
I am pretty sure we are safe.
good, I have no stake in the old bugzilla content... so as long as you
are confident that all such stake-holder share Rob's interpretation of
what 'accepted, for incorporation' means (i.e that
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
--- On Tue, 10/25/11, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
LO had no choice but to take LGPL. So more
necessity/inertia than
ethos. And -- according to Michael -- when it
thought that MPL might be more
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 13:40 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
Since Sun had control of the Bugzilla instance, then anything you (a
non-Sun member of the public) can see was accepted and made
available under the OpenOffice.org open source project.
I don't believe that to be the case. I'm also
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 13:40 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
Since Sun had control of the Bugzilla instance, then anything you (a
non-Sun member of the public) can see was accepted and made
available under the OpenOffice.org
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 08:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
In my experience lawyers don't tend to add pointless
distinctions into
In your experience with lawyers, did they ever teach you to
misquote and/or modify the legal language in order to bolster
your arguments?
Dearest Rob,
--- On Mon, 10/24/11, Michael Meeks wrote:
...
Of course, in an atmosphere
characterised by mutual respect and
collaboration this would be no big deal.
Of course Bugzilla notifies people when there
is action taken on their patches and so far
no has complained but I would certainly
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
and...@pitonyak.org wrote:
Are you aware of the number of changes that have already been applied to the
LibreOffice code base? It is very large. So, although it seems
On 22 October 2011 12:09, Christian Lohmaier cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
and...@pitonyak.org wrote:
Are you aware of the number of changes that have already been
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
and...@pitonyak.org wrote:
Are you aware of the number of changes that have already been
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
I merged some fixes from bugzilla
that may be shared, and they have taken a lot of code that
they tagged as contributed by Oracle.
Are you sure about that? please read the CLA which many of the said
bugzilla patches are
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
I merged some fixes from bugzilla
that may be shared, and they have taken a lot of code that
they tagged as contributed by Oracle.
Are you sure
--- On Sat, 10/22/11, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:26 PM,
Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I merged some fixes from bugzilla
that may be shared, and they have taken a lot of code
that
they tagged as contributed by Oracle.
Are you sure about that? please
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
It just seems that there are too many individual interests
outweighing such a goal at present.
Apache OOo fork is born out of 'corporate' interest not 'individual'
interests. Hence the fatal license road block.
On 10/20/2011 05:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
* A call to LibreOffice contributors also to contribute their changes
to Apache as the ASF is the long desired independent foundation for
OpenOffice.org. On this basis a collaboration among the OpenOffice.org
Apache Project and TDF can be
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
and...@pitonyak.org wrote:
On 10/20/2011 05:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
* A call to LibreOffice contributors also to contribute their changes to
Apache as the ASF is the long desired independent foundation for
OpenOffice.org. On
--- On Fri, 10/21/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM,
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
and...@pitonyak.org
wrote:
On 10/20/2011 05:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
* A call to LibreOffice contributors also to
contribute their changes to
Apache as the ASF
On 10/21/2011 10:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- On Fri, 10/21/11, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM,
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
and...@pitonyak.org
wrote:
On 10/20/2011 05:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
* A call to LibreOffice contributors also to
contribute
Hi,
Wether to stay with OpenOffice or LibreOffice or to migrate to
LibreOffice or to OpenOffce is a question in the recent past often
occurred, by users, by people doing business with OpenOffice, by the
press. The answer I would like to give is that this question is not
really that relevant
On 20 October 2011 10:02, Martin Hollmichel
martin.hollmic...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
Wether to stay with OpenOffice or LibreOffice or to migrate to LibreOffice
or to OpenOffce is a question in the recent past often occurred, by users,
by people doing business with OpenOffice, by the
Am 20.10.2011 11:02, schrieb Martin Hollmichel:
A call to LibreOffice contributors also to contribute their changes to
Apache as the ASF is the long desired independent foundation for
OpenOffice.org.
of course this should read as a call for all people providing patches,
to do a dual licensing
Hello Martin;
First of all a hats off for the work you#39;ve done in the past for OOo,
it#39;s difficult not to have seen your name around in some documents, and my
best wishes that you can get some agreement to complement the ASF funding.
Given that there has already been a 3.4-RC, I do
On 20 October 2011 12:10, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hello Martin;
First of all a hats off for the work you#39;ve done in the past for OOo,
it#39;s difficult not to have seen your name around in some documents, and
my best wishes that you can get some agreement to complement the
Thanks for joining the ooo-dev@ list!
On 10/20/2011 5:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
Hi,
Wether to stay with OpenOffice or LibreOffice or to migrate to
LibreOffice or to OpenOffce is a question in the recent past often
occurred, by users, by people doing business with OpenOffice, by the
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel
martin.hollmic...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
Wether to stay with OpenOffice or LibreOffice or to migrate to LibreOffice
or to OpenOffce is a question in the recent past often occurred, by users,
by people doing business with OpenOffice, by
Forgot my footnote: [1]
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/what_is_a_podling
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel
martin.hollmic...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
Wether to stay with OpenOffice or
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.comwrote:
You could open the discussion
here on ooo-dev, since there are TDF folks here already.
I don't think this is a good assumption, any more than it would be to note
that there are Apache members on the tdf-discuss
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel
martin.hollmic...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
Wether to stay with OpenOffice or LibreOffice or to migrate to LibreOffice
or to OpenOffce is a question in the recent past often occurred, by users,
by people doing business with OpenOffice, by the
Am 20.10.2011 14:35, schrieb Shane Curcuru:
This is an interesting idea. The three key questions are:
-- Are there sufficient volunteers in the Apache OpenOffice podling to
actually complete this work in a reasonable time, without impacting
(what I think is) the progress to a new Apache
Shane Curcuru wrote on Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 08:35:57 -0400:
However, there is a somewhat related precedent in the Apache
Subversion project, which shipped code as a podling under it's
previous license before creating a fully ASF blessed release. As
a widely used and mature project before it
41 matches
Mail list logo
