On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote: >> Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39) >>> >>> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws<oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote: >>> >>>> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) >>>>> >>>>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is >>>>> not an appropriate choice in this situation? >>>> >>>> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license >>>> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. >>>> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with >>>> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO. > > The Apache model is more than just a license - it's a complete system > developed around a community led development philosophy. No part can > be easily replaced.
I've posted more detailed thoughts on this matter at: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06529.html - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
