Am 11.01.2017 um 22:49 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I
> have another point of view :-D
>
IMO there are a lot of points of view possible, when you are talking
about copyleft. And most of these are valid, if you don't say, that one
po
On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote:
Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
have no right to own and control the products of their lab
On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
>
> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
> to cooperation between the
Hello,
anything is possible if you want it. And if you really want it, a merger
with LO is also possible.
The problem is that AOO is way behind. Even if you don't want to hear
it: Too little has happened over the last several years. Ages ago we
discussed what to do about version 5.0 - nothi
Am 11.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb RA Stehmann:
> Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos:
>> The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
>> Each developer own our part from code.
>>
>> And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
>> licence, because with
Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos:
> The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
> Each developer own our part from code.
>
> And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
> licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
Each developer own our part from code.
And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
with apache licence the code can be closed, like IM
Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
> not seem very free to me. For
TDF could be give up these copyleft licences.
Maybe, we could create a petition to ask this
LibO, please bring back to AL v2 licence
:-)
- Mail original -
De: "Patricia Shanahan"
À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Janvier 2017 09:44:26
Objet: Re: future of OpenOffice
On 1/
BTW: I updated the "channel art" at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5VAaY4mqQVhNe8j7fZCEfw
Regards, Matthias
Am 04.01.2017 um 18:15 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Hello youtubers,
>
> If you look for tutorial topics I have a suggestion.
> How to copy stuff in Open Office. All the options. What happen
The problem is another, you are trying to sow uncertainty here.
This is a method I only know of LO / TDF sympatizers and only against
OpenOffice.
Never have I experienced the LO / TDF sympatizers attacking other Office
projects.
Likewise, I have not experienced the OO sympathizers try the same
2017. 01. 11. 10:26 keltezéssel, Raphael Bircher írta:
> Hi Akos
>
> Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
> As whole package yes, but you can ask individual contributors to put
> there
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> Hello,
>
> this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend
> tasks yet.
>
> If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find
> us. And vice
> versa.
>
> We have talked a lot in the past. But at t
Hi Marcus,
"technical problem" does not sound good...
I enabled the box now (or better late last night... ;-) )
I think may, 16-18 is right although apachecon.com mentions 15-19.
Regards, Matthias
Am 10.01.2017 um 22:30 schrieb Marcus:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:04:29 +0100, Matthias Seidel
> wr
On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote:
Hi,
it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
merged in OpenOffice.
That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
kept the Apache
Hello,
this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet.
If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice
versa.
We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any
topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again.
If LO pe
The only way to stop this kind of discussion is to concentrate on the
release of OpenOffice 4.1.4.
We have enough code, we have enough translations. So let's move on! ;-)
Kind regards, Matthias Seidel
Am 11.01.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>> From: suhail ansari [mailto:iamsuhailans...@ou
I wrote something that is not true?
About the trends:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice
Finantial report:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/7/7e/TDFAnnualReport2015LR.pdf
https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/990-2014.pdf
2017. 01. 11. 10:21 keltezéssel
Hi Akos
Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos :
Hi,
it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
merged in OpenOffice.
As whole package yes, but you can ask individual contributors to put there
code to Apache License 2.0.
The single way is that OpenOffice can me
> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:a...@romkat.ro]
> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> merged in OpenOffice.
> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice,
> more exactly
> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because
> the OO code
> is
20 matches
Mail list logo
