Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) On 3 Jun 2011, at 23:01, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> If > TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this > would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would > welcome that as well. It's not necessary to suggest TDF changes it's chosen licence. It's true that if they did new possibilities would be opened but why should we expect them to do so. Some will find the suggestion insulting others will be happy to contribute their code to shared code under the Apache License 2.0 where it can be reused in LibreOffice, there is no new for a wholesale change of philosophy. > We believe that, in practice, the degree to which we > are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the licence > compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to collaborate Again, I don't think this is necessary, but if the first sentence (above) is removed I find it more reasonable. Personally I'd remove both. Ross --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
