Hi Juergen;
I am just catching up with some old mail but thank you for the
interesting report.
Just as an external observer and reminding that IANAL, the LO/TDF
doesn't seem to be complying with the Apache License section 4
subsection (d) and is misinterpreting on purpose subsection (b).
The so-called "rebasing" was obfuscated on purpose, probably with some
level of paranoia, to avoid making clear which code is under an Apache
License and which is not. It was not surprising to find that at least
one CWS, not included in AOO, was "relicensed" and mixed with other
arbitrary license swapping.
Using public funding for opensource projects is great but it involves
all the parties working responsibly. I just think that given the
situation of uncertainty of the results and the general lack of
collaboration from one group it just doesn't make sense for both
projects to work together.
It's not all bad though: While LibreOffice seems to be a place to run
experiments, AOO is setting the new standards that get widely adopted.
Just my opinion though ... I am always glad to be proved wrong.
Pedro.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
