On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > 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.
That's not my intent. Rather, I have tried to capture in writing the things I think it's easy to agree about and leave unsaid the things it is certain will cause an argument. Indeed, I believe that's close to the definition of consensus. But I do believe the developer intent of TDF to be profoundly different from the general developer ethos of ASF, so even in those contentious areas where ideology will come into play I am still optimistic there are ways to collaborate if we have the will to make it happen. S. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
