Hi,
Sam Ruby wrote (10-06-11 18:02)
Please cast your votes:
a. - : because of the difficulties ahead, as mentioned on this list, for
the OpenOffice.org product in the ASF (that may not be relevant for the
AFS, but IMO are for OpenOffice.org), and since TDF for me is a more
logical choice;
Richard S. Hall wrote (08-06-11 11:03)
On 06/08/2011 04:16 AM, Christian Lippka wrote:
Moin Moin [1],
my name is Christian Lippka and I work on the donnated code base since
1998
[..]
I just wanted to say that this is one of the best messages I've read
throughout this entire ordeal. Thanks.
Manfred A. Reiter wrote (07-06-11 17:51)
2011/6/7 Danese Cooper:
Well...the original owner of the code, Marco Boerries, was really
fond of the name OpenOffice. No other name would do. However,
Sun's lawyers were not willing to endorse a name that they couldn't
secure worldwide trademarks on.
Noel J. Bergman wrote (07-06-11 02:03)
Michael Meeks:
"I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for
the OO.o project in the long run."
You:
I agree; you draw the same inference that I do: he means that a
non-copyleft license is the reason for (predicted eventual) failure.
I
Cor Nouws wrote (07-06-11 00:31)
Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51)
Conclusion:
"I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the
OO.o project in the long run."
Supporting statements:
[...]
Supporting explanation ;-)
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox
Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51)
Conclusion:
"I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in
the long run."
Supporting statements:
[...]
Supporting explanation ;-)
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
--
-
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 ?
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
-
To unsubscrib
Hi Sam,
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 16:00)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, 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
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
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
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
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
Cor Nouws wrote (04-06-11 01:49)
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the
press about that (at this stage).
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
http
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 06:31)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:07, 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
reaso
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:56)
rather than talk bad about
Still not get that 'bad' ;-)
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general
[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 Apache.
"
Unless really relevant, I would suggest to leave tha
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press
about that (at this
Nick Kew wrote (02-06-11 17:48)
Hypothetically if this donation had happened before the
OOO/ODF split, can I assume that you would you have regarded it
as a solution to the underlying problems and never have split?
Would have been a solution for part of the problems. Not all, as may be
clear
Hi Rob,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (03-06-11 17:59)
"Allen Pulsifer" wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
AM:
It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document
Foundation
is willing to change its release from
Sam Ruby wrote (03-06-11 20:22)
Unable is a strong word. I given that we are talking about
historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be
possible to identify and reach out to those who made these
contributions. These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights.
Ah yes, and p
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 19:57)
Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to
upgrade or modify their licensing.
Read the '+' in the licence ;-)
Cor
(still reading my way through, and understanding in the mean time that
at any moment constructive contribution is expec
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the
press about that (at this stage).
Meeks is being interviewed about what's going on around libreOffice.
I don't
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 23:48)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws wrote:
I do not understand why that should be a shame.
The article portrays Michael as a spokesperson for the LibreOffice
community. And then Michael proceeds to denigrate the effort here. It
I would not understand
Hi Rob, all,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (02-06-11 21:34)
If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
then I suspect this is with a very low level of engagement.
I know several people that started with really tiny contributions for
LibreOffice in the past months but just evolved to pe
Hi Jim, all,
Long time OpenOffice.org contributor in various areas. Mainly
LibreOffice since Sept. 2010. One of the founders there.
Now looking at a Thinderbird folder with more than 300 mails, of which
I've only read a few up until now :-)
Living in The Netherlands, so If I skip in an hour or
25 matches
Mail list logo
