On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Volker Merschmann wrote: > >>> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but >>> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle >>> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly >>> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in >>> a sense. Taxes were not an issue... > >> I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable": > > Well, "We believe that the MPL (over say an Apache license) as a copy-left > license, is crucial to community growth and acceptance, and has proved > itself with Mozilla" may not have been palatable. >
I replied on the TDF ML about #3 which, from my reading (and from what I have been told by entities both within and outside of Oracle) requested the "infrastructure" which was later clarified to mean servers, various hardware, access to private Oracle infrastructure, etc... Which I also think Oracle would have balked at as well... Had TDF requested just #1 and #2, as well as a more liberal license, *maybe* things would have been different... but who knows. Those sorts of questions do more to retard progress than advance it... We are here... let's continue moving forward! Cheers! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
