Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Op 18-6-2011 12:35, Florian Effenberger schreef: Hi, Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28: Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote the content and they are responsible for the content on the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure at all. so, how would you write things to be understandable much better? I'm really curious to hear how the perception could be made better... (seriously asking, not meant with bad intentions) Have a look at the first sentence on the homepage. It simply states that TDF is a Foundation, while strictly spoken, it isn't (yet). The lack of clear information about this on the website might lead outsiders to suspect that TDF want to sweep some uncomfortable facts under the rug. The word Foundation in this sentence could be made a web link to a page that explains about the current situation and the progress towards becoming an actual foundation. That way, things would become much clearer. After the foundation is established, the link could point to the Statutes and similar information. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Op 10-6-2011 0:44, Simon Phipps schreef: On 9 Jun 2011, at 23:06, Robert Derman wrote: Volker Merschmann wrote: Hi, 2011/6/9 Simon Brouwersimon.o...@xs4all.nl: Suppose Oracle had considered donating the OpenOffice.org trademarks and copyrights to TDF. How could it be the recipient of such a donation if it didn't exist as a legal entity? I'm feeling it's the hundredth time it is told: The german association Freies Office Deutschland e.V. is the legal represantive for the TDF until the legal act of founding has happened. And the latter one is not so easy to do. Volker My Deutsch isn't the best, I am guessing that the literal translation of the above is Freedom Office Germany e.V. whatever the e. V. stands for. Anyway a non legaleze explanation of what is happening and what must happen for TDF to be a full official foundation would be appreciated. I'll try to explain as I understand it. Disclaimer: I just an ordinary TDF member, not on the Board and with no official standing. This is just the view I have gained by reading the mailing list and wiki. I am English and have limited German skills, so this may contain errors and I welcome corrections. Summary: There is already a full official foundation involved - FrODeV - with LibreOffice effectively one of its projects, but its mission statement is more general than just LibreOffice so it is in the process of spinning out a new entity to look after LibreOffice. Detail: There is already a non-profit in existence; it's name is Freies Office Deutschland e.V. (eV is a German suffix a bit like Ltd or Inc), but it's easier to call it FrODeV for short[1]. It is a fully-functional German non-profit with bylaws[2], accounts[3] and everything. It has existed for a number of years and exists to support and promote open source office suites. It used to be called OpenOffice.org Deutschland eV but changed its name[1] when the LibreOffice project started so its scope was clearly all open source office suites. FrODeV has been running a separate asset pool[4] for LibreOffice, and has expressed its intent to spin out a new, capital-backed non-profit organisation to look after that asset pool. To do that, FrODeV needs a set of voting members, an elected Board, a set of bylaws and a capital sum in the asset pool. Once it has all those, it can incorporate the new entity and spin it out. So a timeline of that process looks like this: 1. FrODeV starts the process of hosting TDF with the intent of it being an incorporated capital-holding non-profit foundation in Germany (Stiftung) 2. A Steering Committee is appointed to handle TDF's affairs, under the oversight of FrODeV 3. The necessary capital sum is obtained from donors 4. Bylaws are devised 5. A membership is identified according to the bylaws 6. The membership elects a Board of Directors 7. FrODeV incorporates the Stiftung, as Stifter (founder/donor). 8. TDF now exists as a legal entity independent of FrODeV The process has reached stage 5, and stage 6 is imminent. There has been and as far as I can tell will never be a point in this process where there is no full official foundation in existence. I don't understand your reasoning in that last part. Yes there is an existing legal entity in the picture, but it is not TDF but FroDEV, and it is not a foundation but an association. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Simon, Simon Phipps schreef: On 9 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Simon Brouwer wrote: Anyway, I think it is high time that TDF be made a foundation proper. Suppose Oracle had considered donating the OpenOffice.org trademarks and copyrights to TDF. How could it be the recipient of such a donation if it didn't exist as a legal entity? Really easily. Either the current legal entity by which TDF will be incorporated, Freies Office Deutschland eV, could accept the donation, or the US agent retained by them, Software in the Public Interest (SPI) could accept it on their behalf (as will still be the case once TDF is incorporated - TDF will not need a US subsidiary in order to accept donations, because of SPI). I am not sure how much legal sense accepting on behalf of TDF makes as long as TDF is not a legal entity. In any case the existing situation makes matters complicated and unclear. Time for this does not exist meme to end, it is baseless and it is unhelpful to perpetuate it after so many people have explained that fact. I am not saying TDF does not exist, I'm pointing out that it is high time it gets the firm legal status that it needs IMO. As the president of a foundation myself I should have some idea what I'm talking about. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Hi Jim, all, Jim Jagielski schreef: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote: A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non- TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is incorporated in Germany, not the United States. That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)? I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs there... being independent is quite important to a number of FOSS ecosystem people... While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying that you don't think TDF is independent. Please can you explain what you mean? People may just be curious about TDF being backed byFreies Office Deutschland e.V. as well as an associated project in Software in the Public Interest (SPI). What does being backed by them mean? How independent is it from these 2 entitied? Just questions like that. Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? But is it even just a legally established foundation? AFAIK, TDF unto this day does not exist as a legal entity. That aside, I don't think there is any reason to doubt the independence of its community, steering committee etc. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Op 9-6-2011 16:32, Simon Phipps schreef: On 9 Jun 2011, at 12:12, Simon Brouwer wrote: Hi Jim, all, Jim Jagielski schreef: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote: Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote: A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non- TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is incorporated in Germany, not the United States. That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)? I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs there... being independent is quite important to a number of FOSS ecosystem people... While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying that you don't think TDF is independent. Please can you explain what you mean? People may just be curious about TDF being backed by“Freies Office Deutschland e.V.” as well as an associated project in Software in the Public Interest (SPI). What does being backed by them mean? How independent is it from these 2 entitied? Just questions like that. Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is just a legally established one? But is it even just a legally established foundation? AFAIK, TDF unto this day does not exist as a legal entity. While that's pedantically thank you... correct, TDF appears to currently be an initiative of a perfectly adequate non-profit legal entity and as such I have no problems with its existence or independence. I have no problems with its existence or independence either. Anyway, I think it is high time that TDF be made a foundation proper. Suppose Oracle had considered donating the OpenOffice.org trademarks and copyrights to TDF. How could it be the recipient of such a donation if it didn't exist as a legal entity? -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Op 6-6-2011 10:38, Simos Xenitellis schreef: Let's read the document you cite, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html A permissive license is recommended/suggested in two cases, when a. «very small projects» b. «projects that implement free standards that are competing against proprietary standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video)» I cannot fit OpenOffice in any of these criteria. Doesn't OpenOffice.org implement the free standard ODF, which is competing against the MS Office standard file formats? -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote: A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non- TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is incorporated in Germany, not the United States. That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)? -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Help , if it is or not
Hi Florian, Given the ability to save documents with password protection, I'd say yes. Best regards Simon Brouwer Florian Reisinger schreef: Do we or don't we? This project DOES NOT incorporate, access, call upon, or otherwise use encryption of any kind, including, but not limited to, open source algorithms and/or calls to encryption in the operating system or underlying platform. This project DOES incorporate, access, call upon or otherwise use encryption. Posting of open source encryption is controlled under U.S. Export Control Classification Number ECCN 5D002 and must be simultaneously reported by email to the U.S. government. You are responsible for submitting this email report to the U.S. government in accordance with procedures described in: http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/PubAvailEncSourceCodeNotify.html http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/PubAvailEncSourceCodeNotify.html and Section 740.13(e) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) 15 C.F.R. Parts 730-772. Thanks for your help! Florian Reisinger -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Sean White schreef: Oracle who are in a bigger campaign of open-source destruction than MS is at the moment, I know some anti-Oracle sentiment can be expected here, but seriously... -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Compiling in Windows
Op 29-10-2010 16:22, plino schreef: I'm not a programmer but something is puzzling me: why is LibreOffice compiled with MS VC++ compiler? Only LibreOffice for Windows is. The reason is probably that it is the best compiler to produce programs for Windows with. This forces the installer to include the VC++ runtimes... And what would be the objection to that? -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Compiling in Windows
Op 31-10-2010 12:09, plino schreef: In the spirit of Open Source it doesn't make any sense that a closed source compiler is used. Not any less sense than that a closed source OS is needed to run the program... This means that the script available to compile the Windows version, requires you to either use the limited free version from Microsoft or to buy a the full version from them... Currently MinGW-W64 is capable of compiling 32 and 64bit binaries... If the compiler is not up to the task maybe the developers could also contribute to that project... Sure, why not. They probably have too much time on their hands anyway. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Compiling in Windows
Op 31-10-2010 15:20, plino schreef: @Simon, so therefore I should not use Open Source programs because I'm using a closed source OS? When did I ever suggest such a thing? Don't you see how absurd it is to need to BUY a compiler to compile a FREE program? If that were the case, I might, but it isn't. You can compile the Windows version of OOo/LO using the free (as in beer) compiler VC++ 2008 Express. See http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows No absurdity involved. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to leave
Op 18-10-2010 14:09, James Walker schreef: The one thing that has always bugged me is. How is it any different having LibreOffice and someone being in both project, and the OracleOffice part. I mean are they not competing projects. Would Oracle not prefer someone to go with there version of OpenOffice.org and pay them for support on it. How then can an employee, someone being paid by Oracle, then sit as a member of the Community Council, or have an active role for the project. I really see no difference in the two at this time. Well, I do. I have never heard of any Sun/Oracle employee promoting that OpenOffice.org community members contribute to StarOffice/Oracle Open Office instead, let alone on an Openoffice.org mailing list. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer. | http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org | -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
