Hello André, On Sunday 17 October 2010, 16:39, André Schnabel wrote: > Hi, > > Am 17.10.2010 19:24, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: > > I am not that naive. > > Do you think that some people on LO do not have commercial interests? and > > are not "primarily thinking of their commercial interests"? > > > > An example of commercial interests are the certifications: > > > > http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/msg01515.html > > Maybe you should distinguish between people discussion on the list and > "people on LO".
From my point of view, the messages I quoted are very representative of what
is going on, and what will come.
But maybe you should explain who are the "people on LO".
If you missed my last paragraph:
> Not to mention the obvious interest of taking the control on the technical
> decisions to other hands.
though I agree with you on this:
> But yes - there are always people areound who have
> commercial interest. This is ok and no problem, as long as all plus
> people without commercial interests them find a way to collaborate and
it is still not clear to me what entities there are in LO/TDF, and how they
are ruled.
> there is a gouverning entity that is independent from such interests.
and here I mean the so called "LibreOffice technical group", which is basically
Go-oo ("The people behind go-oo.org" from http://go-oo.org/about/)
with another name ("LibreOffice technical group").
Because by reading
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2010-September/000002.html
I count 5 from Novell and 1 from RedHat among the "Present" and "Invited".
I do not buy that Novell and RedHat (add Google and Canonical) do not have
commercial interests in this.
What power has this "LibreOffice technical group", how it was elected, what
rules they follow, and how is this group under the control of the "governing
entity that is independent from such interests", is no clear to me.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
