On 6/3/2011 12:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote: >> >> Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any >> other foundation. So we are where we are. > > We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to > collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what "open" means. "My way or the > highway" talk - from any side - is detestable. ASF has the opportunity to > reject the bait to head down the path of ideological conflict, choose a > conciliatory path that respects the existing community and especially to use > the trademark (which is the only actual asset being transferred) for > everyone's good.
In all fairness, in addition to a separate trademark grant, the stock example http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt form spells out the assets. >From your perspective, the existing LGPL/MPL hybrid may already grant most everything you require. For IBM and others, it had not, prior to this permissive grant. That said, the definition of "everyone" in your statement above would mean different things to different readers, and I'll step back from the licensing discussion precipice now :) ++1 to ongoing collaboration by all OOo code consumers :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
