Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice & LibreOffice]

Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 6 Jun 2011, at 02:49, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. > wrote: >> >>> In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard. >>> Did you know that OpenOffice is already behind Lib

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 6/5/11 11:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this project, so exactly who the hel

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> >>> On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd, was commerciall

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

Hi, Le 6 juin 11 à 02:28, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit : Because Oracle and TDF, in confidential negotiations, could not come to an agreement. Also that's one more reason why OpenOffice.org should be hosted by the Apache Foundation. For the memory, LibreOffice and TDF have been created

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/5/11 11:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>> ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this >>> project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should >>> and shouldn't d

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

Am 06.06.2011 03:56, schrieb robert_w...@us.ibm.com: > There are limits to what competitors can do to divide markets among themselves. IANL, of > course, but this smells very bad, and I suggest we don't broach the topic > again, unless cleared by ASF Legal Affairs. I myself will withdraw from > t

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > >> On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>> Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd, >>> was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior to the creation >>

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

Whatever. This is just not a concern. Please end this thread. There is no problem, so this is just noise. -g On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 00:44, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: >> The problem here is that Rob and Sam and other well-known employee

Re: Questions for the cheap seats. - Priming the Pump

Well, a quick answer is that we can't make a release that requires code under a license less permissive than ALv2. "Releasing" a tarball of the entry code would most likely not fulfill that requirement. That's why it gets a bit tricky. The meta-answer is that we don't want to surprise downstream c

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd, > > was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior to the creation > > of the Apache Software Foundation*? > > There is a

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> >> ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this >> project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should >> and shouldn't devote that time and energy to? > > I am just a vo

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

Am 06.06.2011 03:08, schrieb robert_w...@us.ibm.com: > 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

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 6/5/2011 11:43 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> Agreed. I wish I had a clearer idea of what constitutes a good >> reason to reject an incubator proposal on principle, though - even >> just a good enough reason to reject this one. As long as there is >>

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/5/2011 11:43 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > > Agreed. I wish I had a clearer idea of what constitutes a good > reason to reject an incubator proposal on principle, though - even > just a good enough reason to reject this one. As long as there is > some promise of building a community and IP / gra

RE: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

I take Rob to mean that he has to deflect that kind of conversation. And he probably has to think about distancing himself from such conversations of others. Perhaps he could be better at it. Does it really matter? (Not being a corporate employee of any flavor, I consider myself free to speak

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

Hi Shane On 05/06/2011 14:53, Shane Curcuru wrote: Sophie Gautier wrote: [...] I've got the BOPI for France if you're interested in. Kind regards Sophie Yes, please. If anyone has direct links to specific registration numbers and where they're held of either "OpenOffice.org" (which we're ta

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > The problem here is that Rob and Sam and other well-known employees are being > addressed as IBM employees here I perceive Sam answers and arguments to be consistent with the 'I am an individual member of Apache' position. I may disagr

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/5/11 3:51 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier >>> wrote: Hi all, I have tried to follow as much as emails as possible but it's >>>

RE: Questions for the cheap seats. - Priming the Pump

Since I don't know what "proper, vetted release" entails, I will have to shut up. If it is a concern that Oracle has included something that doesn't belong to them, I suppose you might want to do whatever you need to do to ensure the IP is in order. But considering that this is the (initial)

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

I'll try to clarify that with the people involved with the project at that time. Best, Jomar -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:18:06 To: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

Re: Questions for the cheap seats. - Priming the Pump

Sorry, but we don't typically release code from not-passed proposals or failed podlings. This would be an extraordinary circumstance, which is why I mentioned the Board input. So... I would not recommend this as a "first step" since it would be abnormal. Tarballs on the sly aren't good; the ASF wa

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

On 6/5/2011 9:33 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this > place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand > why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the > LibreOffice part of the OOo

RE: Questions for the cheap seats. - Priming the Pump

I think this should be the very first step regardless, even for first materials accessible from the podling. The next would be to figure out how to stage it onto the Apache infrastructure, build what can be built, see what the deltas are, etc. This sort of preservation and assessment seems indi

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

Right. In short, there is no way to "divide the market" when you're talking about ALv2 licensing. Everybody has equal access to very permissively-licensed software. It is not a worry. Move along, please. Cheers, -g On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 23:51, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > The problem here is th

RE: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

The problem here is that Rob and Sam and other well-known employees are being addressed as IBM employees here and even called to account for their employer's behavior and intentions by some of the participants. I suggest that the best way to deal with those requests is to meet them with silence

Re: Questions for the cheap seats.

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 17:18, Andy Brown wrote: >... > 1: What will happen to OOo's code and trademark if the podling is not > approved? > > 2: What will happen to OOo's code and trademark if the project does not > graduate? I believe the answer is the same for both of these questions, and with t

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/5/2011 5:38 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: I still think that's open for discussion. To my eyes it still makes a lot of sense to have Apache host the parts IBM (and maybe others, although their existence is exaggerated) need for their proprietary products, and then have TDF maintain a consumer e

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM, wrote: > 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 volunta

Re: From Michael Meeks on Apache License

Michael has posted here already, and will do so when he wants to make a statement. We don't need the reposting. On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 23:14, Keith Curtis wrote: > He wrote this yesterday and it describes in different words why the > Apache license is not so pragmatic for LibreOffice. > -

From Michael Meeks on Apache License

He wrote this yesterday and it describes in different words why the Apache license is not so pragmatic for LibreOffice. The problem is, that very much of our work is inter-dependent, and we want people to be able to work all over the code, cleaning, translating and fixing it. It would

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

IANAL, but since neither the ASF nor the TDF have any authority to compel their members to behave in any certain way, and since the ASF is technically made up exclusively of individuals (as I understand it) this seems way off base to me. This isn't IBM and Novell discussing dividing up a market, u

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the LibreOffice part of the OOo community right from the start. S. On Jun 6, 2

RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

In support of Sam's point here, I add that OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice.org already provide the required ALv2 notices in their listings of third-party dependencies. The list is installed as part of every install of one of the distributions. I even included a copy of one of the latest LibreOf

RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice - That's Not What Re-Licensing Is

If you remove the ALv2 license and don't provide the notice that the license requires, you are in violation and are infringing the Apache copyright. Likewise, adding a copyright notice to an intact public domain work is not a claim that is defensible. There's a misunderstanding about relicens

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 09:42:14 PM: > From: Simon Phipps > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Date: 06/05/2011 09:43 PM > Subject: Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division > of markets" conversation? > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, wrote: > > > > > > > > > But

Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice & LibreOffice]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard. >> Did you know that OpenOffice is  already behind LibreOffice when it >> comes to ODF support? It has to do with footnote markers. > > Which is apropos of... ODF

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:24 AM, wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM: > > => > > > I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue > creating, > > building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all > the > > locales it is today, along with

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, wrote: > Simon Phipps 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

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

At the risk of sounding naive, why do some people continue to believe that an Incubator list at Apache is a realistic way to get an answer about IBM's corporate strategy? I suppose given the community history it's certainly a controversial issue likely to get some sort of response, I just don'

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 09:01:08 PM: > > > > Since this is question that is pervasive in the project, I'd recommend > > that after this proposal is accepted, that there be a consultation with > > ASF Legal Affairs on the trademark *before* any project infrastructure is > > created.

Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice & LibreOffice]

On 6/5/2011 8:26 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. > wrote: >> >> We are now >50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a >> contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing. >> >> Let's remember please to not feed the trol

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

At the current moment I'm not sure there is a strictly definitive answer, given that Oracle technically still owns the trademark. When we have specific legal questions that need to be worked on, we can work with Sam and the privately archived legal-internal@ mailing list. Once the ASF has the

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

Simon Phipps 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 wan

Re: /ignore troll [was: OpenOffice & LibreOffice]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > We are now >50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a > contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing. > > Let's remember please to not feed the trolls, and move on. I was only kidding about this bei

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

Raphael Bircher wrote on 06/05/2011 08:47:42 PM: > > Because this is my first mail, I give a short introduction to myself. > > I'm Raphael Bircher from Switzerland. I contribute for OOo since 5 years > as QA and in same other tecnical parts. I was involved by the migration > to the kenai Inf

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM: => > > I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue creating, > building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all the > locales it is today, along with an estimate for the IPMT of how big the task > is, wh

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >> >> This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says: >> >> "The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not >> require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the >> same license." > > You are confu

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

On 6/5/2011 7:13 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >> I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested >> mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here. >> >> This is what I entered into the wiki: >> >> The following m

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 20:37:01 -0400: > Greg Stein wrote on 06/05/2011 07:55:34 PM: > > > > > I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested > > mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here. > > > > This is what I entered into the w

Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:08 AM, wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM: > > > > > > > > The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know > a few > > > OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that > > > extent this is a community fork

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 21:03, Andy Brown wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:07, Alexandro Colorado >>  wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Greg Stein  wrote: >>> I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested mailing lists. Figured

/ignore troll [was: OpenOffice & LibreOffice]

On 6/5/2011 3:56 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. > wrote: > >> others, "Free/Libre" software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work >> is ever "Free/Libre". There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought, >> and we won't go into detail, others have

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

Am 06.06.11 02:55, schrieb Greg Stein: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:47, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi all Because this is my first mail, I give a short introduction to myself. I'm Raphael Bircher from Switzerland. I contribute for OOo since 5 years as QA and in same other tecnical parts. I was invol

Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division of markets" conversation?

Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM: > > > > > The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know a few > > OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that > > extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as that'll > > confus

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

If IBM "pulls a harmony", TDF can just use the Apache licensed code that's available and run with it. Here the problem currently is how to make things work if/when the podling gets accepted and folks start contributing, stick around for a long time with lots of good contributions from multiple so

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On 6/5/2011 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > With the exception of pure-BSD purists (who reject the patent clauses) > AL can be mixed with any code to come out with the more restrictive of > the licenses. > > AL + BSD == AL > AL + MPL == MPL > AL + GPL == GPL > > The following are not pos

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >> Fully disagree. I encourage you to read the terms. >> >>> -Keith >> >> - Sam Ruby > > This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says: > > "The Apache License, like most other

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On 6/5/2011 6:04 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> >> We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own. >> That "universal donor" condition places lots of restrictions on our projects, >> but somehow they manage to release use

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

Greg Stein wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:07, Alexandro Colorado wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Greg Stein wrote: I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here. This is what I entered into the wiki:

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Alexandro Colorado > wrote: > > > > I have the feeling none of the Apache people have read the OOo site > > regarding this topic. > > I see your name on OpenOfficeProposal. That means that you will be > one of the

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > Fully disagree.  I encourage you to read the terms. > >> -Keith > > - Sam Ruby This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says: "The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not require modified versions of the softw

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:53 PM, wrote: > acolor...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 08:07:29 PM: > >> OpenOffice.org official contaction is 'OOo' not 'oo' I think is enough > time >> to correct these mailing lists. I wrote a more lenghty email but I think > the >> discussions should be better unders

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/5/2011 6:19 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard S. Hall >> wrote: >>> On 6/5/11 16:50, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > IMO the o

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> >> You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must >> respect its terms. >> >> Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an >> ALv2 license mus

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

FWIW, renaming our lists is largely a scripted operation. I wouldn't hold up creation of mailing lists simply because we can't figure out what the best names for them are. - Original Message > From: "robert_w...@us.ibm.com" > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 8

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:47, Raphael Bircher wrote: > Hi all > > Because this is my first mail, I give a short introduction to myself. > > I'm Raphael Bircher from Switzerland. I contribute for OOo since 5 years as > QA and in same other tecnical parts. I was involved by the migration to the > ke

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

acolor...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 08:07:29 PM: > > OpenOffice.org official contaction is 'OOo' not 'oo' I think is enough time > to correct these mailing lists. I wrote a more lenghty email but I think the > discussions should be better understood by Apache admins. > +1 Since this is q

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> > I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail to this list, but you >> > didn't reply so far. So, if you could elaborate on that, I'd really >> > appreciate that. >> >> I can t

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/5/2011 5:45 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: > robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (05-06-11 23:25) >> So, it does not logically follow that if a proposal at Apache is rejected >> that we go to TDF/LO. > > After all, why would you ? Purely argumentative posts aren't appropriate on this forum. Take it elsewher

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > > I have the feeling none of the Apache people have read the OOo site > regarding this topic. I see your name on OpenOfficeProposal. That means that you will be one of the people we will be depending on to help. That's how things work

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:37 AM, wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM: > > > From: Simon Phipps > > I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been > waiting > > to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has been strong on > > long-term abstract vision

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:07, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested >> mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here. >> >> This is what I entered into the wiki: >> >> T

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

Hi all Because this is my first mail, I give a short introduction to myself. I'm Raphael Bircher from Switzerland. I contribute for OOo since 5 years as QA and in same other tecnical parts. I was involved by the migration to the kenai Infrastructur, and I'm willing to help by seting up the new

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must > respect its terms. > > Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an > ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header > off o

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>> There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read >>> the license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 07:58:17 PM: > > No, it was my point that that they only negative to TDF/OO was the > license here: > > http://markmail.org/message/w5vtsa5nbarmnqxo > > But please do elaborate on why IBM prefers a new project here rather > than contributing to TDF/OO - I

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Ralph Goers >wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Ralph Goers < > ral

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the >> license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html >> >> This will help you properly research the to

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail to this list, but you > > didn't reply so far. So, if you could elaborate on that, I'd really > > appreciate that. > > I can tell you that those decisions are made above Rob's and my pay > grade

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > > The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know a few > OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that > extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as that'll > confuse

RE: OpenOffice: where are we now?

+1 -Original Message- From: robert_w...@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_w...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 15:34 To: general@incubator.apa

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

Greg Stein wrote on 06/05/2011 07:55:34 PM: > > I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested > mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here. > > This is what I entered into the wiki: > > The following mailing lists: > > oo-...@incubator.apache.org - for d

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM: > From: Simon Phipps > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Date: 06/05/2011 07:50 PM > Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now? > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > > > > > I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to ent

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/05/2011 07:52:53 PM: > Hi, > > robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 01.48: > > Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of > > Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license? > > I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail t

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope >> Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable >> unless the pending application is turned

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

Attempting to guess IBM strategy around this ... IMO the reason this whole thing is happening is because with TDF there no longer was a place that downstream proprietary aggregators of OO like IBM could use to build a closed-source solution (no org to do a dual license with). The Apache license is

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> >> On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Ralph Goers >> wrote: >>> There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffic

RE: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

As a type O-positive human, I think the metaphor works quite well. I can donate blood that is compatible with folks that I can't receive blood from. In fact, I can only receive blood of another O-type individual (positive or negative). Yet my blood is compatible with that of all *-positive i

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On 6/5/2011 5:30 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, wrote: >> Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01 >> PM: >> >>> >>> This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for >>> entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be >>> answered

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Ralph Goers >wrote: > > > >> There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope > >> Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOf

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the > license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > > This will help you properly research the topic as well: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-F

Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote: > > I would recommend altering the proposal. "We have the set of files > > specified in the software grant. During incubation, we will seek a > > grant to the following groups of code: " > > > Done. > Beat me to it :-) We still need to get that list fles

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>> You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility >>

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope >> Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable >> unless the pending application is tur

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope > Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable > unless the pending application is turned down. > Actually that trademark application is of deep con

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > Hi I want to know if there is any formal clearance on the way OpenOffice.org > ought to be reffered as. > > Since the adquisition of Sun by Oracle, they start re-inciting misquotations > of OpenOffice.org as "OpenOffice" even later they mod

Re: [OO.o] updated mailing lists in proposal

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested > mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here. > > This is what I entered into the wiki: > > The following mailing lists: > > oo-...@incubator.apache.org - for

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope > Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable > unless the pending application is turned down. > I will still enoucrage that play safe according to

Re: OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org

There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable unless the pending application is turned down. Ralph On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > Hi I want to know if there is any formal cle

Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > On 6/5/11 7:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall> >wrote: >> >> I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then >>> try >>> to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume th

  1   2   3   >