Guys, if we are going to argue over the mistakes of the pasts and the slights of the past, quite frankly, we aren't going to get very far.
This is supposed to be a happy occasion; let's not bicker and argue about who-killed-who... :) On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:11 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: > Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/02/2011 10:25:20 > AM: > >>> >>> 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. >> > > Respectfully, Jochen, that is your opinion, but it disproved with every > non-IBM name added to the wiki. > > Despite TDF press releases, there was never unanimous support for > LibreOffice among members of the OpenOffice.org community. We're seeing > some of them stand up now and be counted. > > What is best for them? Really? Do you really want to tell them what is > best for them, what will make everyone happy?! > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
