On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > > >> > > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who > > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made > > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the > > statement above would need to be both qualified in this manner and > > extended to enumerate other complements that might apply in other > > situations. > > I disagree. LO has a focus on the binary deliverables and the consumer > destinations they reach that is perfectly complementary to the developer > focus of Apache. This complementarity is entirely unrelated to licensing. >
Agreed, but that assumes that LO is "just" a build/deliverables/consumer focused entity, and doesn't have a developer interest as well. As long as they still do, then licensing is important. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
