On 10/19/2010 08:38 AM, Ramon Sole wrote: > But if the roles on TDF has to be based in contributions or meritocracy, > Oracle contributes about 80% of the programmers; furthermore most of
Try fifty percent. But then, that percentage includes the code that Sun, and then Oracle point blank refused to include in their build. >So Oracle would deserve to rule in TDF too if they join. All Oracle has to do is join TDF. And respect the principles under which the foundation was set up. That invitation is still open. > So let me doubt about the sincerity of the "joining offer" from TDF to > Oracle. The offer was "join us, but we'll rule on own way", w The offer was join us, and behave in an ethical and moral fashion. And respect other people. Oracle of course, has no ethics, no morals, and no respect for other people. > Why TDF founders didn't try to change the OOo community rules by democracy or meritocracy before the fork? They did. The problem is that Sun, and subsequently Oracle point blank refused to even address the issues, much less attempt to solve them. Oh, and had Sun and then oracle adhered to either the meritocracy, or democracy, they would have made the requested changes. That they did neither is simply one more demonstration that neither company had a clue as to what FLOSS was about. >I've never read on any list a formal or even informal proposal about that. You must be new around here. Very new. > They just decide to take control of everything without asking the Community, > and the only way of doing that is leaving OOo and convince as many people as they can to join the fork. It literally was a case of "build the ball park, and the people will come flocking in." > Why didn't they do it since first day it's not understandable to me. In the business world, it is not uncommon for companies in the same industry to have common board members. > "Oracle fired us, they're tyranic, do you see?". Inasmuch as the firing is a violation of the rules that were set up to run the governing body, their firing is yet one more example of Oracle showing that it is utterly clueless about how to adhere to rules -- rules that were set up by its predecessor. > And whose pocket's drops the money OpenOffice is going to generate in next > years. Inasmuch as Oracle intends to turn OOo into a closed source, propriety product that is sold, or licensed, they probably will end up with more revenue from sales. LibreOffice might well end up with more distributed copies though. jonathon -- No human will see non-list, non-bulk, non-junk email sent to this address. It all gets forwarded to /dev/null
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
