On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I have no reason to believe that the remediation Rob speaks of has anything
> to do with any part of OpenOffice.org.
You mean except for Rob's own statement ?
"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediatio
I have no reason to believe that the remediation Rob speaks of has anything to
do with any part of OpenOffice.org. I would presume it matters with regard to
the IP of IBM or others licensed by IBM that may apply to Symphony content
beyond whatever OpenOffice.org code they started with.
With
The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice (incubator) RC1 has
concluded.
The ballot passed.
VOTE TALLY
+1:
IPMC members:
+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski
For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/20
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> @Norbert,
>
> I don't see any mention of patent issues in that message.
it says:
"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediation at many levels. Where we've worked around things, we'll be
able to contribute
@Norbert,
I don't see any mention of patent issues in that message. Since
Symphony-related contributions have not occurred yet, they certainly are
irrelevant to the release of Apache OpenOffice (incubating) 3.4.0. It is a
good thing that IBM will ensure there is no encumbrance in anything tha
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> I think you are just trying to find some silly excuse to complain
> about code that *you* clearly didn't write or own. All the code
> either from version control or bugzilla was provided by Oracle
That is not what was said in the ooo-dev l
I trust that the Patent issues raised by Rob Weir on this mailing-list in
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cof1a1f1f97.0ba57c1e-on852578a4.004ec606-852578a4.004fc...@lotus.com%3E
have been disclosed and addressed to the satisfaction of the IPMC ?
Norbert
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On 05/01/12 12:20, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for
>>> smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any
>>> committer can veto a patch. So incoming pa
Sorry for taking time .. here is my +1
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Suresh Marru wrote:
>
> On May 1, 2012, at 11:18 AM, sebb wrote:
>
> > On 1 May 2012 14:54, Suresh Marru wrote:
> >> This is the first incubator release for Apache Airavata, with the
> artifacts being versioned as 0.2-incuba
On May 1, 2012, at 11:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 1 May 2012 14:54, Suresh Marru wrote:
>> This is the first incubator release for Apache Airavata, with the artifacts
>> being versioned as 0.2-incubating.
>>
>> We are requesting at least one additional IPMC member vote, as we have
>> received 2 b
On 1 May 2012 14:54, Suresh Marru wrote:
> This is the first incubator release for Apache Airavata, with the artifacts
> being versioned as 0.2-incubating.
>
> We are requesting at least one additional IPMC member vote, as we have
> received 2 binding Mentors/IPMC +1 votes during the release vot
This is the first incubator release for Apache Airavata, with the artifacts
being versioned as 0.2-incubating.
We are requesting at least one additional IPMC member vote, as we have received
2 binding Mentors/IPMC +1 votes during the release voting on airavata-dev:
Community VOTE & RESULT Thre
Hi Jukka,
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> ...I notice that Clerezza has made a release, but Stanbol
> still needs one...
The Stanbol release is imminent, the seventh (!) release candidate has
just been voted on and should hit this list in the next few days.
As a Stanbol
13 matches
Mail list logo
