sorry, please disregard this. I got the subject messed up somehow
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:01 PM, todd rme wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>> On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme wrote:
>>> I don't think you mean the same thing when you say "symmetric" as the
>>> people her
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme wrote:
>> I don't think you mean the same thing when you say "symmetric" as the
>> people here mean. As far as I can see, you are talking about the
>> ability to use the code being symmetrical, while the LibreOffic
On 5 June 2011 17:15, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >
> > So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting
> proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate?
>
> I've outlined two here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.c
On 6/5/11 6:14 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It is, agreed. Maybe I am just somewhat of an optimist
that I believe even pure idealogical stakeholders can find
common ground and that nothing is "inevitable".
Hi Jim, I have posted a message on the general@incubator mailing list,
but I haven't seen i
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals
> we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate?
I've outlined two here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06542.html
I
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 5 Jun 2011, at 16:57, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 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 wou
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 Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 05:15:38PM +0300, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> 5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers.
In order for a podling to graduate from the Apache Incubator and become a
"top-level" Apache project, it must demonstrate that it has a healthy
community which will ensure
On 5 Jun 2011, at 16:20, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
> Personally, I don't think it's "inevitable" at all, nor do I
> think it the place for people to make such statements on behalf
> of communities that they have, as far as I know, only limited associations
> with.
Actually I am a TDF Member and ha
2011/6/5 Ian Lynch
There is a third option. That is that something you believe in needs
> something else you don't believe in in order to be achieved. It leaves a
> dilemma. Some people switched a stance of anti-nuclear power because now
> they believe it's better than CO2 emissions. It's not th
Ian Lynch ,
Could you trim your signature? Could you just quote relevant parts of
others' posts?
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundatio
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 5 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Given these plain facts
>
> Others have started with similar plain facts, but have since found it
> productive to listen and even begun to indicate a willingness to
> consider sharing the burd
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
I have some disagreements with some of these statements, but I am a guest
here. I would like to answer queries and concerns, rather than attempt to
change opinions. In other words, I don't see a good way to respond to this,
if that's what you are seeking.
Cheers,
-g
On Jun 5, 2011 10:16 AM, "Simo
On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is. It
> > is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
> > of the code that they are willing to share the burden
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Given these plain facts
Others have started with similar plain facts, but have since found it
productive to listen and even begun to indicate a willingness to
consider sharing the burden of development of core portions under a
liberal licen
On 5 Jun 2011, at 16:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 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 fou
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis
wrote:
>
> What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
Worst case: a code base that you can cleanly relicense to your choice
of license without any requirement to give anything back. This
provides an opportunity to free yourself of cons
There's an important concept in Michael Meeks' e-mail that mustn't get lost:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 17:03, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> The problem is, that very much of our work is inter-dependent, and we
> want people to be able to work all over the code, cleaning, translating
> and fixing it. It
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 Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
...
> I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is. It
> is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
> of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
> with the larger community.
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
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is. It
> is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
> of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
> with the larger community. Di
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev wrote:
> So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except
> apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part
> of ASF.
It is not clear to me what you are seeking from Oracle.
While it is true that the A
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:35:46AM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
>> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
>> the apache license, why should
The ASF accepts contributions from anyone. You don't have to
be "part" of the ASF to contribute. The ASF is a meritocracy,
and so the more you do, the more you *can* do, and providing
bug fixes, patches, documentation, translations are all
welcome and needed contributions (as with all FOSS projects
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:35:46AM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> Only Oracle could add another license to the mix, but if everyone
> subscribes to the apache-proposal, and thus shows their support for
> the apache license, why should Oracle even consider to re-license?
The horse is out of the
So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except
apache 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 fullquote
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
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 is in my opionon a stupid idea for LO people to
sign up as contributors
Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing companies.
Laurence
On 05/06/2011, at 8:41, Christian Lohmaier
wrote:
> Hi Allen, *,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer
> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I don't know what vision IBM has for the project. I don't know wha
Michael Münch ha scritto:
So for me to join the proposal feels like becoming one of the worst paid
IBM employees.
BTW, there would be some concerns about what kind of community will be
the new Apache OpenOffice one too. At least, I have them.
A development community, as I suppose, or a end u
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 04.06.2011, 01:30 -0600 schrieb Tor Lillqvist:
> > So here is my suggestion: I propose the everyone here head over to the
> > Apache Incubator and join the proposal as an initial member.
>
> Well, at least for me the problem is:
>
> I *work* on LibreOffice.
although I am
Hi!
If I understand correctly:
What is developed by the Apache license can be "used" at LibreOffice but
what is done by LibreOffice can not be used by OpenOffice as OpenOffice
would move to offer the principles of under the GPL.
Thus, the suggestion would be to join efforts to OpenOffice under th
201 - 238 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
