On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: > > Sure - there are lots of nice side effects of rationalisation and so > on, it all sounds good. But unfortunately IBM's move here is not > primarily focused on that - otherwise (surely) it would work with TDF - > where it has been made clear, it would be most welcome as a senior, > leading player. Incidentally, Rob's diversity diagram is in my view > somewhat misleading: large numbers of OO.o derivatives (no matter when > they release) are already united around LibreOffice's work. > > > I would hope instead, that ASF + IBM can work with TDF's governance to > try to hammer out some ( I suspect grisly to ASF ) compromise. In my > view, a key element of that needs to be copy-left licensing[2] to assure > the project's future as a focus of real community collaboration. >
?? I am concerned about the strawman argument that somehow this project is a ASF+IBM one; it's not. It's an ASF project (well, podling). Despite maybe some unclear or over-eager statements to the contrary, the people who drive the project are the people, the individuals, within that project, no matter what their affiliation. This needs to be crystal clear. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
