Hi Jim,
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 16:14 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
> as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive
> stance.
Hey ho; I see my name being taken intravenously ;-) so the longer quote
from a private mail from which this was excerpted that I sent to Sean
(who I think summarised it fairly) was:
The ASF has a very well designed governance, and a very
experienced team, and some excellent licensing for specific
situations, and I love their open-ness and robust discussion
which is refreshing to see wrt. OO.o. <quote> "However, I do not
believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o
project in the long run. They are sufficiently confident and
comfortable with their model that attempting to negotiate over
changing any core aspect of it (such as the non-copy-left
stance) is unlikely to be fruitful work. So - only time will
tell. </quote>
There is only so much sweetness and light I can prefix to honey my
basic conviction expressed as an individual :-) Hopefully one that you
heard from me directly first. Furthermore, I believe that the Apache
licensing and policies are for the most part extremely mature, very
applicable and effective in certain projects, and fundamentally
non-negotiable. These are the 'core aspects' I'm trying to get at as
pointless to discuss changing.
Reading the threads here, I hardly think that is controversial, but
perhaps I missed something - I certainly don't want to shame anyone.
Furthermore, if journalists come and ask questions, and others are
speaking to the media - I don't see any substantial ethical problem with
doing so too.
Apologies if it came across badly,
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
