Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > And those will not be liberated; rumors about this spread due to > > inaccurate or unclear blog posts by the Document Foundation > > Sorry, but don't spread FUD. > The Document Foundation surely didn't > spread any rumors about fonts or cliparts or other proprietary stuff.
Sorry, no intention at all to create FUD. The "inaccurate or unclear" sentence is still there at http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about-oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/ "we welcome Oracle’s donation of code that has previously been proprietary" and a similar sentence is at http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html "according to TDF, some OpenOffice.org code that had previously been proprietary is coming with the Apache-2.0-licensed code dump. This alone may make it all worthwhile". Comment #7 on the first blog post is a request for clarification signed by me and ignored. I opened a thread on TDF-discuss where other people commented in and it didn't result in a clarification or correction. So, while I totally believe the error was made in good faith, I really cannot believe I can be accused of creating FUD: the statements are there, they ARE inaccurate or unclear and nobody took care of clarifying them. > So prove your claims, or don't spread them. I hope I've now given all details you need, but I repeat I've totally no intention to create or spread FUD (and I know the same holds for you), so if you need more clarifications just ask. Regards, Andrea.
