Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote on 06/05/2011 09:13:24 PM: > > > > I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream deliverable. > > It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It > > would be great if a private company does this. It would be good of a > > government wants to do this. It would be great if multiple parties wanted > > to do this together. It would be great it multiple parties wanted to do > > this separately. > > > > But I am very very very concerned that this conversation is starting to > > cross over into a "division of market" conversation, which has stiff > > penalties under US and international competition law. Open source work, > > like standards, is work done voluntarily among competitors in the market. > > There are some things we must not talk about, especially things where > > competitors may be seen as arranging to reduce competition. We need to > > steer the conversation far from this. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories > > > > > We are discussing how the OpenOffice.org community (which as has been > explained has two different open source projects in addition to a variety of > downstream commercial consumers of the open source code) could structure its > operations. >
Simon, in several posts I heard you suggest what sounded to me like a compromise that would reserve end user supported versions for TDF/LO, while Apache would exclude itself from that market and pursue other options. You put that into the wiki at one point, using the workd "complementary" to describe the division. You've suggested that Apache not try to get involved in end-user software, especially where it would compete with TDF/LO. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. But if you are suggesting anything like that, I think that is crossing the line. -Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
