On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of > telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's > a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer > deliverable from Day One. > > Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an > excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and > TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution. > Didn't I suggest that first? :-) > > One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF > is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge* > and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience. > I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to. > I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there yet. There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, especially on Day One. I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to confidently +1 it. S.
