RE: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)

On Jun 4, 2011 6:25 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: >... > 2. With regard to building distributions, binary libraries are terribly awkward unless Apache were to limit its OpenOffice project to a single platform and programming model. In contrast, LibreOffice is going full-up C++ and the Java depe

Re: [italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: ...snip... * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo? ...snip... The ASF has a recorded Software Grant that includes the trademark along with a specific list of source code files. I have not yet seen the specific grant of the trademark itself at the ASF yet (i.

Re: OpenOffice Proposal: Relationships with Other Apache Products

robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: I plan on updating the proposal on the wiki over the week-end. I'm going to start a series of threads on various sections of the proposal that I think are a bit thin and which I could use some help with. For "Relationships with Other Apache Products" we current

Re: Consideration of OpenOffice.org as a podling

On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 11:18:16 -0700 > Ralph Goers wrote: > >> I've just managed to wade through some 400+ emails to this list in the last >> 2 days and I would estimate that less than 10 were particularly relevant to >> what my vote will ultimately

Re: OO/LO License

That is true. There is also the possibility that there are a set, possibly large, of knowledgeable developers who only want their work non-copyleft. And another set that really couldn't care one way or another. That's simply the nature of FOSS licenses. I develop and release code under all types o

RE: OO/LO License

Hi Andrew, I'm not talking about private bilateral arrangements between Sun/Oracle as the copyright holder and other entities. I am talking only about the distributions and code that are made available to the public and other developers via OpenOffice.org. There the only license offered is LG

Re: Consideration of OpenOffice.org as a podling

On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 11:18:16 -0700 Ralph Goers wrote: > I've just managed to wade through some 400+ emails to this list in the last 2 > days and I would estimate that less than 10 were particularly relevant to > what my vote will ultimately be on this proposal. It seems pretty clear to me > tha

Re: OO/LO License

Agreed. The main problem is if say the majority of knowledgeable developers only want their work licensed copyleft. On 4 Jun 2011 23:50, "Andrew Rist" wrote: On 6/4/2011 11:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it shoul... The code was used under multiple l

Re: OO/LO License

On 6/4/2011 11:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is also the case that contributors of code to LibreOffice are required to affirm that their contributions

Re: OO/LO License

Dave Fisher wrote on 06/04/2011 05:35:32 PM: > > On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > >> > >> Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two > communities might mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is > LO/

Re: RE: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)

+1 On 4 Jun 2011 23:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: I have trouble imagining MPL'd binaries being baked into an Apache offering. 1. For now, it doesn't matter. At the moment, there are no separable MPL'd bits into something like reusable libraries at all. There is simply no re-licensing of L

RE: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)

I have trouble imagining MPL'd binaries being baked into an Apache offering. 1. For now, it doesn't matter. At the moment, there are no separable MPL'd bits into something like reusable libraries at all. There is simply no re-licensing of LibreOffice (especially the still-significant LGPL par

Re: OO/LO License

On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two communities might >> mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is LO/TDF might contribute to >> Apache OO by providing portions of

Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?

On 6/4/2011 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Our emails may have crossed in the ether. My suggestion is that I > take ownership of this question. I will state that I do not plan to > proceed via this questionnaire. I missed the *what* you were taking ownership of :) Coolio, and thanks.

Re: RE: OO/LO License

Maybe stop lurking :-) Your contributions will be valuable On 4 Jun 2011 22:06, "Manfred A. Reiter" wrote: sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-) ## Manfred

RE: OO/LO License

sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-) ## Manfred

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 19:42) I must have significantly misinterpreted the below: "However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said. "They are sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that attempt

Re: OO/LO License

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two communities might > mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is LO/TDF might contribute to > Apache OO by providing portions of the LO codebase as MPL binary libraries. > > Sam, is

RE: OO/LO License

PS: As far as I can tell, what none of those distributions do in their appeals to LGPL3 is carry any indication of where and how their source code can be found. Naughty, naughty. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Saturday, Ju

Re: OO/LO License

On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: >> Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all >> distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is >> also the case that contributors of c

Re: Recuse as mentor?

I really can't see that as necessary Jim. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> >>> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who >>> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffic

Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?

Thanks Sam Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:13, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, wrote: >> Ross Gardler wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM: >> >>> Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible? >>> >>> I think it is relevant how

Re: OO/LO License

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all > distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3.  It is > also the case that contributors of code to LibreOffice are required to affirm > that thei

RE: OpenOffice and the ASF

Quoting the full context for "these" at : "The second is projects that implement free standards that are competing against proprietary standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > I can see why some might read into those statements implications that > probably were not intended. That is the problem with perspectives :-) I used these quote to illustrate that and to put that in parallel with the complaint about Michael Meeks

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 4, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who > made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we > naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be > kept, well, o

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

Hello Jim, 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski > > On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > > > We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People > > have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to > scrap > > that off in favor of something else an

Consideration of OpenOffice.org as a podling

I've just managed to wade through some 400+ emails to this list in the last 2 days and I would estimate that less than 10 were particularly relevant to what my vote will ultimately be on this proposal. It seems pretty clear to me that there is a lot of emotional reaction to this but a lot of tha

Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > You could ask these questions of RedHat management, or Novell management, > but in asking this of "open source management" suggests to me that there > is a serious disconnect in your understanding of meritocratic, open source > softwar

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People > have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap > that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they > don't ev

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: > [Picking a random mail in this thread] > > I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal. > > I read > " Reliance on Salaried Developers > ... > Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major > reason for establishing the project at Ap

Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?

On 6/4/2011 7:37 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: > > It is not relevant how ASF would answer these questions. You see, I think it is, and apparently other mentors do as well... > I'm open to to possibility that a 6-month old open source association with > a single project might have more fle

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's > recommendation, than taxes. > I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle as to prevent any sort o

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Cor Nouws wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33) >> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, got that wrong I see now >>> http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org >>>

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > >> > > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who > > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made > > available. Until or unless we resolve

Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, wrote: > Ross Gardler wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM: > >> Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible? >> >> I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be >> taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such >> questio

Re: Build machines: external or colocated?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Most of Apache Infrastructure is based on shared resources, and our build > environments are no exception. We currently provide both jenkins and > buildbot > based build systems, and the slaves naturally run jobs for several > projects. > W

Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?

Ross Gardler wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM: > Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible? > > I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be > taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such > questions without first understanding the consensus of

Re: Build machines: external or colocated?

On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton > wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> >>> In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work >>> with you to sort out the details. The Infrastr

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On 4 June 2011 13:37, wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM: > > > > > On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > > >> > > > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who > > > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made > > > availabl

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On 3 Jun 2011, at 20:33, Leo Simons wrote: > Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first > arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :) Strong +1 to that. This is a big decision, and some of us would like to gauge reaction beyond the confines of this list be

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On 4 June 2011 16:54, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > > > > Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is > > not a value judgement. > > > > Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way > > round > > > >

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

I think this is a diversion. We all know the press will choose the single sentence that will create the most traffic. It doesn't matter if this pro or anti foo, they just want traffic. Let's just assume nobody intended any malice. The journalists want us to fight, it makes for better stories.

Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?

I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such questions without first understanding the consensus of the members I would be most displeased with my Board. To expect the TDF to treat their membership in this way

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > > Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is > not a value judgement. > > Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way > round > > Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will no

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On 4 June 2011 15:46, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz > wrote: > > Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby: > >> While other choices may make sense depending on the > >> specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice > >> that does not cast t

Re: Recuse as mentor?

On 4 June 2011 12:52, Allen Pulsifer wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wote: > > Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties, > or whatever... > > There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that I have done > wrong, or did not do, > > or did not due to someone's satis

Re: Build machines: external or colocated?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> >> In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work >> with you to sort out the details.  The Infrastructure Team is reachable at >> infrastructure@a.o, but

Re: Build machines: external or colocated?

sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/04/2011 10:19:27 AM: > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, wrote: > > I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build > > OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware > > business, I might be able to get them to

Re: Build machines: external or colocated?

Joe Schaefer wrote on 06/04/2011 10:37:03 AM: > > In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll work > with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable at > infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to help bridge > any gap

Re: Build machines: external or colocated?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Most of Apache Infrastructure is based on shared resources, and our build > environments are no exception.   We currently provide both jenkins and > buildbot > based build systems, and the slaves naturally run jobs for several projects. > > We

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: > Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby: >> While other choices may make sense depending on the >> specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice >> that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation. > > I do no

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

"Andreas Kuckartz" wrote on 06/04/2011 06:24:07 AM: > > I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this > as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense. > > Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org / > LibreOffice code legally usable wi

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

dsh wrote on 06/04/2011 07:53:54 AM: > Andreas, > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: > > I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes > > binaries available for free: > > http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony > > > > Although you can do

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

Hi, Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-04 16.28: "Oracle America" is the full name of the entity that granted us the code. They may not have been able to get the same tax deduction donating to a foreign entity. The tax deduction would be*considerable* given the value of the OOo brand. ah, sorry, the

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby: > While other choices may make sense depending on the > specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice > that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation. I do not know if that is a "valid perspective" or not, but I think that t

Re: Build machines: external or colocated?

Most of Apache Infrastructure is based on shared resources, and our build environments are no exception. We currently provide both jenkins and buildbot based build systems, and the slaves naturally run jobs for several projects. We provide access to Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, and a few flavor

Re: Recuse as mentor?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Allen Pulsifer wrote: > Its seems that you have a high level of > mistrust for certain persons and are not prepared to reach out > magnanimously > to all parties in an attempt to bring them together. I see this as > creating > ongoing problems. > As a student and

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 4, 2011 10:08 AM, "Florian Effenberger" < flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05: > >> In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org. > > > where is this different from a German entity where donations are tax-deduc

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: > However I > will state that in ca

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM, wrote: > I'd be satisfied to merely not have the project's potential existence > portrayed as a disease that must be eradicated from the face of the earth. This type of rhetorical flourish does not lead to mutual cooperation. Take it elsewhere. - Sam Ruby --

Re: Build machines: external or colocated?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, wrote: > I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build > OpenOffice.  Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware > business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department.  But > I wanted to first check on w

Re: Build machines: external or colocated?

On Jun 4, 2011 9:43 AM, wrote: > > I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build > OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware > business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But > I wanted to first check on what the

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On 06/04/2011 09:40 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die. Which is a possible consequence of any software... How many times can we go around in circles? I agree with Ian. Accept that there are two communities and move on either togethe

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

Hi, Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05: In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org. where is this different from a German entity where donations are tax-deductible, like with the current association (which is even accredited as "especially meritorious" by t

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to > join in here: > > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14: > > The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either > copyright or

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]

Andrew Rist wrote on 06/04/2011 01:07:36 AM: > > > > Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo > > extensions? Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, > > Professional Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc. > Our approach is to start with the main open sourc

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz >>  wrote: > >>> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? >> >> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is >> not a

Build machines: external or colocated?

I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side.

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

Hi, On 04/06/2011 16:03, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello Robert, 2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkin [...] The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an alternative path might achieve their aims faster...

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die. Cheers, Andreas --- Am 04.06.2011 15:10, schrieb Ian Lynch: > 1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo. > > ... > > Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient support and > stagnates

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

Ian Lynch wrote on 06/04/2011 09:10:05 AM: > > > So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code they > own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of view > but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an > Apache license

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On 4 June 2011 13:47, Cor Nouws wrote: > Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39) > >> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws wrote: >> >> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) >>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation?

Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)

Hello Jochen, 2011/6/4 Jochen Wiedmann > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who > went to a fair bit > > of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on > Rob's blog and elsewhere. >

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

Hello Robert, 2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkin > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger > wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > Hi Florian > > (Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list) > Did I send you a reply off-list? Damned phone... > > > I'm still reading a few mess

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39) On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws wrote: Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache licen

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz >> wrote: >> > > If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? >>> >> >> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is >> not an ap

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

Hi Jim, Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33) On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: Hmm, got that wrong I see now http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your statem

Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?

"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/04/2011 12:22:31 AM: > From: "William A. Rowe Jr." > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Date: 06/04/2011 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible? > > On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: > > If someone on the list from TDF

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Simon Phipps wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM: > > On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > >> > > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who > > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made > > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is not an appropriate choice in this situation? Yes. As expressed by many o

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

The reason for my questions is that I hope that answers might in some way potentially help to avoid separate code bases for OpenOffice.org / LibreOffice or at least make it possible to avoid that for parts of the code. Some kind of reasonable relation between Lotus Symphony and Openoffice.org / Li

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> >> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who >> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made >> available.  Until or unless we resolve that issue, I fee

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

Andreas, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: > I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes > binaries available for free: > http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony > Although you can download IBM Lotus Symphony for free it is still licensed as

RE: Recuse as mentor?

> Jim Jagielski wote: > Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties, or whatever... > There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that I have done wrong, or did not do, > or did not due to someone's satisfaction. > If people want, I will happily remove myself as

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: >>> However I >>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for >>> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License,

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the > statement above would need to be both qualifie

Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went > to a fair bit > of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on Rob's > blog and elsewhere. And rightfully so, if your understanding is righ

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: >> However I >> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for >> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version >> 2.0 is an appropriate choice: >> >> ht

Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)

On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann > wrote: >> Excuse me for interrupting ... >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, wrote: >> >>> LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. >> >> I've been reading MPL a few times in this

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi Robert, Hi Florian (Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list) > I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to > join in here: Just like the rest of us :-) Noisy and open - every

Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: > > So my question to IBM is: > Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if > only parts of it) ? While I work for IBM, I don't work for that part of IBM. That being said, I do believe that we already have an answe

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

On 4 June 2011 12:19, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: > >> > >> Hmm, got that wrong I see now > >> > http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 06:19:06AM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > Jagielski says what is "typical" for Apache is "building (or even > "_re-building_") communities around those codebases." Which is true. It does not say that TDF is not able to. > ... > He says that makes Apache the perfect place

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: >> The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing >> GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents.  I assume that CC-by is not toxic >> for Apache, since it is the close

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25,   wrote: >>... >> Simon, >> >> Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment: >> >> "potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well >> as on Windows and Mac consumer end

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:25 PM,   wrote: >> Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM: >> >>> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in >>> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to >>

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: >> >> Hmm, got that wrong I see now >> http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org >> >> Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misun

  1   2   >