* Andre Fischer (af)
* Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
* Andrew Rist (arist)
* Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
* Armin Le Grand (alg)
* Dave Fisher (wave)
* Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
* Drew Jensen (atjensen)
* Ian Lynch (ingotian)
* Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
On 8/24/2012 11:19 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Really, all this fuss over the LABELLING of
a file being distributed does not add value
to either the org, the podling, or the users
of the software. Nowhere is it written that
you CANNOT DISTRIBUTE BINARIES, however it
has always been clear that they
+1 (non-binding)
Please cast your votes:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
[ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr..
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Volker Merschmann
wrote:
Some fundamental comments about the license have been written down by
the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice
That's worthy of a new subject line.
While the first line of the first paragraph is inaccurate (we ha
to a foundation independent of Oracle: Team OpenOffice.org e.V.
searching for a more complete answer
Oracle Email Signature Logo
Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847
On 6/8/2011 4:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 8
I'll quote my earlier answer [1] on that:
Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with
clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of
licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit
at a later stage of the project.
(acknowledged
As I understand it, the trademark issues are being dealt with by the
appropriate Oracle & ASF people.
It is not an issue of 'if', but 'how'. IANAL - so I'll let them handle
it.
Andrew
On 6/8/2011 1:02 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Nothing else has been received from Oracle. You will be the thir
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Rist wrote:
It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo,
taking into account licensing and ownership issues.
This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation
databases. I am following the discussions he
It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo,
taking into account licensing and ownership issues.
This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation
databases. I am following the discussions here closely,
and I am collected all of the lists that are
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
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
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 source code - stuff with
clear provenance. The OOo extensions are mo
But this raises another question - does Oracle donate the code only or
will ASF also get the contents of the website, wiki, translation database
(wich has some more information than what you see in the code), ooo-specific
tooling (OOo used to have some web portals to support
development, qa,
On 6/3/2011 2:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:29, Simon Phipps wrote:
...
text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's
/such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
openoffice.org resolve to a working and current site without
interr
14 matches
Mail list logo
