Maybe it's about perception. Most organisations have a culture that has at
least some degree of interpretation. If you want something clear cut and
defined in such a way as to have no scope for interpretation you lose
flexibility. Even the law gets interpretation. So perhaps its just a matter
of un
On 13 December 2011 10:23, seba.wag...@gmail.com wrote:
> How does the ASF deal with requests from companies that would like to get a
> certificate as reseller of a software?
>
> Are (Podling) Projects allowed to organize a "Certification" program for
> distributors and collect funds for their pro
On 10 June 2011 17:49, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Simon,
>
> Anyone interested can VOTE. If u see some of the votes they have
> "(binding)" in the text, those are from folks on the incubator pmc.
> Ultimately if we see a whole bunch of -1's then we check which way the
> pmc voted to decide if the
Sorry for ignorance but what does binding - non-binding mean?
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
On 8 June 2011 22:50, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> > Your donation will go directly towards helping this project. Some of the
> ways
> > in which your funds might be used include:
> > • Hiring independent developers to work with OpenOffice.org.
> > • Paying for part
>
> I think it would be good if the proposed committers who have not yet done
> so, could post a quick note to the list, to introduce yourself and your
> interest in this project. Think of this as an opportunity to introduce
> yourself to your future collaborators on Apache Ope
On 8 June 2011 15:40, wrote:
> "Manfred A. Reiter" wrote on 06/08/2011 10:17:02 AM:
>
> It would be perfectly possible, and actually quite easy for
> someone
> > > to host the files with a scalable cloud storage provider, e.g.,
> Amazon,
> > > and charge $0.99 for the download, the cost of an iP
On 8 June 2011 08:43, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman
> wrote:
> >
> > [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
> > under the current licensing regime is for all co
2011/6/7 André Schnabel
It is only that you have at a rather low-traffic apache list guests who are
> used to discuss on high-traffic lists. And discussion is often with lots of
> emotion (but seems to clam down).
>
Ah, nostalgia, it's just like the good old days on the OOo marketing list
:-)
“
On 7 June 2011 18:05, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
> Hi Ian, *
>
> 2011/6/7 Ian Lynch :
> >>
> >> and another one:
> >> Der Klügere gibt nach.
> >>
> >> > But, please,
> >> > everyone, let's not focus on the past, and
>
> and another one:
>
> Der Klügere gibt nach.
>
> > But, please,
> > everyone, let's not focus on the past, and let's not get personal or
> > insulting. It simply doesn't help anyone.
> >
> > Peace,
>
> Gut gemacht. ;-)
>
Vorwärts und aufwärts
(Hope that translated ok, if not I'll stick to gute
On 7 June 2011 16:49, Volker Merschmann wrote:
> 2011/6/7 Ian Lynch :
> > On 7 June 2011 16:27, Volker Merschmann wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ian,
> >>
> >> 2011/6/7 Ian Lynch :
> >> > On 7 June 2011 16:08, Volker Merschmann wrote:
> >&g
On 7 June 2011 16:27, Volker Merschmann wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> 2011/6/7 Ian Lynch :
> > On 7 June 2011 16:08, Volker Merschmann wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Robert,
> >>
> >> 2011/6/7 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> >> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:
On 7 June 2011 16:08, Volker Merschmann wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> 2011/6/7 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
> wrote:
> >> Tomorrow, the OpenOffice.org Community Council will hold a meeting to
> discuss What Now? It's not going to be our last meeting. I
>
> Note, I've signed up as a mentor on the proposal.
>> We need to convince Ian Lynch to get involved too (if he's not already),
>> but I'll work on him later ;-)
>
>
> So far, Ian never helped us, but who knows :-)
You might remember we did talk a
On 7 June 2011 06:49, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
With OOo the company was nasty and people went away and were happy.
> The company wants the project at the ASF, and some people complain
> now. After all I never really heard the words "I want it at the ASF"
> from somebody with OOo adress
I have
On 6 June 2011 18:09, eric b wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 6 juin 11 à 19:00, Ian Lynch a écrit :
>
> Look guys, this is going round in circles. I'm not an ASF or TDF member
>> but I spent quite a lot of time and effort on OOo and ODF in the past so I
>> care what happens
Look guys, this is going round in circles. I'm not an ASF or TDF member but
I spent quite a lot of time and effort on OOo and ODF in the past so I care
what happens. The fact is the software grant is made. My understanding is
that if the code goes into the incubator it does not even guarantee it wi
On 6 June 2011 17:12, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Was it already at that time known that Oracle was going with a liberal
> license, and the fork was then a choice based in the ideological
> differences in licensing?
>
> If it was not, how would the people who forked then have reacted if
> Oracle did th
On 6 June 2011 17:08, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:46, Ian Lynch wrote:
> >...
> > And the natural extension is that if there is no home for the OOo code
> with
> > Apache where will it end up? That scenario is not without risk either.
>
> As I&#x
On 6 June 2011 16:39, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 6/6/11 11:26, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hall
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
>>>
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall
> On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz
On 6 June 2011 12:43, Florian Effenberger wrote:
given that the granted source code seems to be lacking important parts, and
> there is no real idea on how to provide continuity for users (e.g. releasing
> OOo 3.4.0). All of this will do *much* harm, IMHO even more than the benefit
> of having th
On 6 June 2011 11:34, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> IMHO - if there is any such risk - we 1) should both help the regulators
> understand the situation better and 2) do this in such a transparent way
> that members of our communities are better equipped to have their part of
> that conversation.
On 6 June 2011 08:25, Greg Stein wrote:
> Hey. Feel free to spin your theories.
>
> It just isn't possible to divide markets around ALv2 code.
>
We had a lot of these competition discussions/arguments with BECTA in the
UK. They never grasped that FOSS is not a product in the sense of a product
o
On 5 June 2011 22:29, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
> > From: Andy Brown
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 5:18:30 PM
> > Subject: Questions for the cheap seats.
> >
> > Hi all.
> >
> > This is my fist post here, been lurking from day one.
> >
On 5 June 2011 21:59, wrote:
It is amazing how much paperwork is involved, at a large corporation, to
> enable such things.
>
Good reason to set up your own company ;-)
On 5 June 2011 18:47, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
> "one true license"... but I think there is one interesting point to be
> raised here...
>
> But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try
> to be the pre
On 5 June 2011 20:04, wrote:
So I agree that supporting end users is critical, but I think the way that
> this is done in practice, does not necessarily require great centralized
> planning.
I'd say too much centralised planning for end user support is probably a
backward step. We do certifica
On 5 June 2011 17:31, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 2011/6/5 André Schnabel :
> >
> > In your questionary, the questions to me seem to be of two kinds:
> >
> > 1) questions that are targeted to individuals actions (sign Apache CLA,
> > contribute code to Apache as well as to TDF ...)
> >
> > 2) fundamental q
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
+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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>>
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
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
On 4 June 2011 11:33, 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 misunde
In the long run we are all dead ;-) So let's concentrate on the short run to
start with.
On 4 Jun 2011 01:24, "Greg Stein" wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:1...
"However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
for the OO.o
Reality is what matters. So let's make the best reality possible :-)
On 3 Jun 2011 23:15, "Cor Nouws" wrote:
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...
I know several people
What seems clear is that at least to start with we will have an apache
licensed product and a copy left product. Why not just accept this as
healthy diversity?
On 4 Jun 2011 00:42, "Cor Nouws" wrote:
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 23:48)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws wrote:
>> I do
On 3 June 2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> >
> > More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
> > collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
> > ideological division as a given...
> Well, the
On 3 June 2011 18:36, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to
> any
> > other foundation. So we are where we are.
>
> We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
> collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what "ope
On 3 June 2011 18:21, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman:
> > > Sam Ruby wrote:
> > > > From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> > > > one. TDF is now in the position where it has a histori
On 3 June 2011 17:16, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> > one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
> > to change their license to the Apache License.
>
> As I understand it, TDF should c
Hi Florian,
> I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
> at Apache or any other entity.
>
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure volunt
On 3 June 2011 14:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> > (3) There is even talk as to why? I'm also curious as to why they
> would
> need or want to transfer the project to Apache.
>
> Only the person who made that decision knows the answer, and if you ask
> them, you might get an answer, and it might
>
> But initially the proposal, as it has been
> made, is for the continuation of the existing OpenOffice code base under
> the existing OpenOffice trademark.
And for certification, the OOo brand name is important. (Can't speak for
other areas but probably in other sectors too) We are getting dem
On 2 June 2011 22:42, Benson Margulies wrote:
The existing of TDF and the preference of its contributors for
> copyleft is data, but for me it's not data that could persuade me to
> vote -1 in this PMC. I don't care if there are 5,000 people out there
> who are firmly planning to stick to TDF lik
On 2 June 2011 21:22, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Florian Effenberger wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > If there is a community split, that decision will rest solely on those
> > > who choose not to join our all-inclusive environment.
>
> > So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a
On 2 June 2011 17:18, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> >>> As it doesn&#x
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
> > opportunity to reunite.
>
> If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
>
Seems to me the main issue is the lice
On 2 June 2011 14:27, wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote on 06/02/2011 09:12:10 AM:
>
> > From: Ian Lynch
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Date: 06/02/2011 09:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
> >
> > On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein wrote
On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
>
> If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in
> addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the
> proposal on the wiki.
>
I'm not likely to commit code. I run an accre
56 matches
Mail list logo
