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 j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code
to TDF/LO
, Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org
wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote:
That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a
matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of
licenses do not lead to a contribution
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 j...@jagunet.com a écrit :
exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply
boils down to it depends, which is really
On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com
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
(alv2-mpl
wrote:
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 patch acceptable.
as our
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
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05
schrieb Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com:
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 to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2.
Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed
on this 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 j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
an answer from TDF as well
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?
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? Market
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's
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 leaders
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
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, as a
On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:17 PM, David Nelson wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 22:18, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com 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
On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
Hi,
2011/6/10 Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org:
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
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 promise I fully expect Oracle
will keep
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 *nulla
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
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
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 really hugely
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 chunks of h/w infrastructure,
esp
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 which
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 to
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 made it
crystal clear
On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
Hi Robert,
2011/6/6 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com:
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
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 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
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
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
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 under
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 11:47 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 most
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 is a
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 different
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 software
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
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
Hi Jim,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
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
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
On Jun 4, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
Hi Jim,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
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
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 ljelou...@gmail.com wrote:
Make a new license agreement for openoffice? With other contributing
companies.
Sorry, but what is your point?
my point was
your part
of ASF.
Laurence
On 05/06/2011, at 10:11, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
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 ljelou...@gmail.com
wrote:
Make a new license
42 matches
Mail list logo
