Document Foundation,
> Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany
> Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
> Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24.
>
>
>
> Le Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:35:08 -0400,
> Jim Jagielski a
Can someone from TDF confirm Simon's statement. If so, then
I will point people to that email and we'll be done.
On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The ex
oviders know what to do.
On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens
wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>>> That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a
>>> matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of
&
any
> contribution in practical terms is about much more than just the
> copyright license. I struggle to see how that could be misunderstood,
> especially by someone I know to be highly intelligent and experienced.
>
> S.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Jim Jagielski
; Hi Jim,
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05:
>
>> I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However,
>> I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2.
>> Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and
>> nothing else, is such a pat
On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:42:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code
>> to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed
>>
s,
> Florian Reisinger
>
> Am 06.03.2013 um 16:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>
>> Thanks for the reply, but the policy doesn't answer my specific question.
>>
>> I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However,
>> I want to provide that patch t
to understand the problem, in principle, with using any
> combination of licenses in addition to the project's preferred LGPLv3/MPLv2
> dual license, do you have a patch or proposal for a patch submitted to the
> dev mailing list that we can look at?
>
> Best,
> Florian
>
&
r LO 4.0. Maybe worth to add a section
> to explain this and to avoid confusion.
>
> It really confuses me and I am now lost a little bit. How can I as
> individual contributor know where the code comes from originally.
>
>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 3/5/13 6:32 PM, Jim Jagie
s subject here:
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy
>
> Best,
> Florian
>
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-05 18:32:
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> So far, I've rec'd an answer from AO
On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
> an answer from TDF as well.
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get
If people feel that it would be helpful to TDF to have a board member
who has a tight "relationship" with Apache, I would accept a
nomination if it would be useful.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lis
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
>
> I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are
> bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that
> doesn't make them ideal.
>
I'm not sure about that... Some forks are good, some are
bad. It
On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> The overlap between TDF & ASF's goals for an office product (modulo
> enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.
I disagree... competition implies a "winner" and a "loser"...
in FOSS, how do you measure that?
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.
On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Florian Effenberge
On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> \
> I also make more posts because I'm amazed that some "leaders" in our
> movement with the pedigree of IBM are actually hindrances. I see a story
> worthy of the New York Times. In fact, I have a connection ;-)
And I'm surprised that some "lea
On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:54, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>&
On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition.
>
> What does it say about collaborating with others? Anything? (serious
> question, I have no idea).
>
In essence,
On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Right, Simon. ... but (you saw that coming) would TDF/LO accept
>> commits into the repository that were only licensed ALv2?
>
> I'm pretty sure they would, yes, since it in no way inhibits outbound
> licensing under LGPLv3, but of course
On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:17 PM, David Nelson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 22:18, BRM wrote:
>> I was making the observation that TDF's website & materials make little
>> mention
>> of the fact that FroDeV is involved.
>> Therefore, to help reduce the comments by those that _do_ make
On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/6/10 Thorsten Behrens :
>> BRM wrote:
>>> Clearly marking the website, signatures, etc. for TDF would probably go a
>>> long
>>> ways in helping to end that conversation.
>>>
>> Since we're now down to debating cosmetics - c
On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
>> critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
>> established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
>> 'independent' part is important.
>
> Not rea
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-
>
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 50
On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:36 PM, M Henri Day wrote:
> left out. As I see it, the upshot of the matter is that TDF would best be
> advised to devote its limited resources to improving LibreOffice, rather
> than to working to please the lawyerly mind
>
I would suggest, as an outsider, that TDF con
On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:17 AM, M Henri Day wrote:
>
> Jim, thank you for your considered - and considerate ! - reply. The
> circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to
> take(as seems to me to be the case) be
> to accept the grant (in the event Oracle is offering it *null
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:04 PM, NoOp wrote:
> Repeat.
>
> On 06/06/2011 06:05 PM, NoOp wrote:
>> On 06/04/2011 05:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> ...
>>> Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly
>>> clear that this is it... This is one
On Jun 7, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
>
> I do not think that going over our letter to Oracle with the intent of
> finding areas where it could have been improved does any good to the
> exhisting and future relationships.
>
I agree... My "going over it" was simply to indicate areas
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.13:
>> Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I
>> would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away
>> (what I would expect to be) huge c
On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> 2011/6/6 Robert Burrell Donkin :
>>
>> Until the TDF has taken that last step, expect to be challenged about
>> your readiness ;-)
>>
>> I'd like to take up your offer :-)
>>
>> But here on this list and on the understandin
On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:56 AM, toki wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/06/2011 13:25, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> that his mind is made up, whether based on reality or not.
>
> The reality is that IBM employees wearing their IBM hats, have ma
On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:37 AM, toki wrote:
I am sure that the concept of the ASF being "bullied by" IBM
or being the "pawn" of IBM sounds attractive and makes for
compelling tweets.
The fact is that it's not true, any more so than TDF is a
pawn of Novell for example.
I am not replying in this case
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> I had thought you were further away...
>
> That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...
>
Please see:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html
--
Unsubscribe instr
On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
>
> I'm first and foremost an end user, so I'm not concerned about the license as
> far this doesn't allow corporations like IBM to keep their predatory attitude
> vs end users.
>
> So, my stance for copyleft is very practical: proprietary soft
On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> Can you also clarify the disposition of the trademarks please, Sam?
>
> Incomplete at this time. I will have more to say when I have
> something concrete to report.
To clarify: The software grant has a typo in it, where
Oracle donates the Ope
On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> Sorry, but you *based* your conclusion of the inevitability of there being
>> 2 projects on the *ideology* of copyleft vs non-copyleft.
>
> I did that because the diversity of the world of FOSS is a clearly observable
> fact. You observe a dif
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> But just
>> recall that even the FSF admits that AL2.0 is the best license
>> where free/open standards are competing with non-free/proprietary
>> ones.
>
> See Bradley Kuhn's rebuttals to Rob Weir[2][3].
"You should only do that when there
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Hey, chill. As Sam says, there's no ideology involved, just choices. The last
> thing I want is an ideological debate because I already know how it turns
> out. That's why I think it would be far better not to keep making proposals
> whose m
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Your participation is welcome, Sam, but statements that have as their
> unspoken precondition that people with long-term choices abandon them are at
> best disingenuous statements that you have personally been censoring in the
> Apache forum
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> The plain fact is that Apache's rules do not allow any section of
> Apache-maintained code to be licensed under copyleft licenses. That means
> that groups of people who have made the the equally valid choice to have
> their work licensed un
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Are you proposing that TDF could be the copyleft-preferring subsidiary of
> Apache, Jim?
>
I'm not proposing anything. It was asked "What can the Apache
Foundation provide to OpenOffice?". I answered. I've no idea
where you saw any sort of p
Assuming that these are question that you are serious about
wanting answers to, I will attempt to do so.
On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
profit public ch
On Jun 5, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Marc Paré wrote:
>
> Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our great
> product, let OOo go unsupported and gather dust as it was in Oracle's hands.
>
Speaking for any ASF lurkers here, I can assure people that we
are not here to change a
Sorry if you feel that way. I stand by my PoV that what happened
is, in some ways, a victory, even if not the one that TDF ideally
would have wanted. I understand that, and not trying to minimize that
at all.
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:40 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> "but a victory is a victory. Enjoy
which could see no contribution to the project unless your part
> of ASF.
>
>
> Laurence
>
>
> On 05/06/2011, at 10:11, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>
>>> Man, how I love fullquotes :-
On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> Man, how I love fullquotes :-/
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Laurence Jeloudev wrote:
>> Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing
>> companies.
>
> Sorry, but what is your point?
> my point was that it i
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@ in
>> hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF and
Hello!
I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@
in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF
and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if
you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine
as well.
Cheers!
--
Unsubscribe
48 matches
Mail list logo
