On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF > and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms. Instead they > worked out terms with us. We aren't all that picky about > new initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process > to ferret out sustainable activity from those that aren't.
It is great that Oracle gave up OO rather than sit on it. We should be grateful to Oracle for this gift. Note that LibreOffice deserves most of the credit for this opportunity. I wouldn't expect Oracle to give it to the TDF. Apache has IBM backing which looks more credible. > > I'm happy that there are a number of people who still care about > the OOo brand that are willing to work here under our rules. > For those that aren't, and are more interested in the LO brand, have > an appropriate amount of fun. We'd still like you to collaborate with > us even if it just means the collaboration is one-way- we're funny > like that. If our code improves your project, all we ask is that > you respect the license it came with. It isn't about the OOo brand or the LO brand. This is about the codebase, and getting as many people working in the same codebase as possible. That enforces division of labor. You can help fix each other's bugs if you share the same bug database. LibreOffice has already moved to GIT. It will get harder to share code as the trees diverge. You say you won't be the benefit of LibreOfice's work and yet I am amazed you don't care. Are you saying you don't want LibreOffice to relicense your Apache licensed work? Note of course you can only ask ;-) It seems a paradoxical thing to ask for, to create a permissive license, and then insist it stay permissive. -Keith --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
