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... >> > > Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... that > *is* a given. If people are wondering if we would change our license > or even allow dual-licensing, then that is not going to happen. > > Not anything in particular about OOo. It's just the fact.
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 Day One. That will inevitably involve a mix of licenses as the code you're receiving from Oracle has a mix of licenses, so it's not obvious to me why licensing is relevant *on day one*. > Let's be honest: by "collaborate" you mean have the ASF simply > xfer the code and the trademark to TDF and walk away... At least, > that is the strong impression you give. Please correct me if I'm > wrong. No, not at all. I'm suggesting ASF ask LibreOffice to help it out of a bind temporarily. > 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 <the service Sam won't let me name> offended you. S. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
