On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:10 AM, <robert_w...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/01/2011 02:56:10 > PM: > >> >> > We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list, > developers >> > familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symphony (which is > our >> > OpenOffice based project). But then we could have been criticized for > the >> > proposal being too dominated by IBM. It is clearly our intent to grow >> > this project, both from our corporate developers, but also by > recruiting >> > new members to the project, including developers from related open > source >> > projects (see my previous note) >> >> And why couldn't IBM do quite the same with LibreOffice, or, even >> better, with a remerged O/LOffice? >> > > I trust I do not need to explain at length to an Apache PMC the relative > merits of the Apache 2.0 license or the strengths and stability of the > ASF. I'll take it as granted that this is well-known to you all. In any > case I am a strict adherent to the practical wisdom of not debating open > source licenses while sober, and I decline to make an exception in this > case.
Rob, it may come as a surprise to you: But what I wrote was in no way related to a particular license. I would have written just the same, if Apache would use the LGPL/MPL and LibreOffice where ASL licensed. The point I am trying to make is that it is (IMO) in noone's interest to create a second community (!), the exception (at least it seems) being IBM. Everyone else would be just as happy or even happier if the OO code base, trademarks, etc. where simply donated to TDF. Jochen -- Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
