I think we need to rewrite or remove the page.
We can talk about the permissive AL.
We can suggest that people do their own research and/or seek their own counsel.
We could even offer a google link.
If we have a vote then here is my +1 to make a change as we should not be
offering this type
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
aggressive or just the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:29 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
As it is still not clear if we
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as
every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
aggressive or just the
Am 02/19/2015 08:29 PM, schrieb jan i:
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcusmarcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content
PROPOSAL: Remove the page link from the sidebar, so that the controversial page
is no longer reachable from other pages on the site. Do this in all languages
having the page.
We can then continue this discussion about the page itself, whether it is to be
recast in some manner, whether the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
Hi.
We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.
There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like
another license to have
On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
Hi.
We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.
There are of course people who
I saw no confusion in the article and I enjoyed it But it is odd that the
page exists there of it is an unrelated opinion piece. That said, of it is
indicating a reason the license fire AOO is desirable, that is different.
On Feb 19, 2015 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
Hi.
We
+1 on change or removal
It is perhaps more useful to follow the thread view of the conversation that
resumed today on the legal-discuss mailing list,
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/thread.
Some suggestions have been voiced there too.
Anyone can also
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the
disclaimer to the top, made it
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
Hi.
We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
seems to be like a red
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
Hi.
We have a page
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:
Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
agreeable content on it.
That sounds smart to me, +1.
I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation -
maybe he has comments
On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org
wrote:
Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
agreeable
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org
wrote:
Why not just
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:
Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
agreeable content on it.
That sounds smart to me, +1.
I note that on
On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM,
21 matches
Mail list logo
