Le 28/11/2012 19:43, M Henri Day a écrit :
Agree - but the responsibility for the forking should be placed squarely where it lies - on Oracle. Moreover, the forked paths would have automatically rejoined had Oracle, when it decided to dump OOo, chosen to assign it to the Document Foundation, which was already up and running and which requested that this be done. Instead, the firm decided to assign all the rights to Apache, in the knowledge that doing so would perpetuate the fork. Thank you, Mr Ellison....
But you're forgetting the license difference! Apache license has been chosen because it allows a more permissive reuse of the code. Of course I understand the fears that it can draw but it can also attract big players. Even if some code is note given back to the community, they know that if they want to benefit from the support of the community, the community need to know about the new code those big players are injecting too. So let them customize for their own need and help the community with code that is not strategical for them, with manpower, with ODF support, ... BTW, Isn't LO investigating a license change (to Al v2, like AOO)? What would happen to the already submitted code that is based on OOo code and not AOO? The mere thinking about switching is a proof that in the end, the Apache license may be the best way to attract resources. Hagar --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
