2011/6/5 André Schnabel
> Hi,
>
>
> Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch:
>
>> On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconi> >wrote:
>>
>>> Is it sure there will be a *product*?
>>>
>>> I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there
>> will be code licensed so that it can b
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.
We have a truly community oriented and supported product with great
licenses as opposed to a restrictive ASF product. We do
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Consolidation of copyright in the hands of one entity enables unilateral
> relicensing. We have all just seen that in action with Oracle's software
> grant of the OO.o codebase under ALv2 to the ASF, but it was also in evidence
> earlier wh
A reminder,about last line. In this particular case Oracle does not have
the "copyrights" about openoffice.
If they claim that now,they will have serious problems with other
companies for a lot of reasons...
Em 05/06/2011 16:06, Marvin Humphrey escreveu:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:12:59PM
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:12:59PM +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
> I don't see how it is possible to "take it all back" Once licensed that code
> and subsequent derivatives are not in their control. Just like LO can go on
> developing as before. If they fork the project under their own new license,
> ye
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:44, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 5 Jun 2011, at 18:42, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no
>> indication either intends to change), then I believe direct "joining"
>> of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find ot
On 5 Jun 2011, at 18:42, Greg Stein wrote:
> As long as each entity holds to these principles (and there is no
> indication either intends to change), then I believe direct "joining"
> of forces will not be possible. The hope is to find other ways to
> cooperate.
Any idea what the best venue for
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:38, Alexandre Silveira
wrote:
> Another alexandre...
>
> I've been reading the discussion and i have a pragmatic question.
>
> Why ASF doesnt join to TDF and better Why TDF join to ASF using their code
> governance to develop one unique produticvity plataform called Libre
2011/6/5 André Schnabel :
> Hi,
>
>
> Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch:
>>
>> On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca
>> Turconiwrote:
>>>
>>> Is it sure there will be a *product*?
>>>
>> I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there
>> will be code licensed so that it can b
Another alexandre...
I've been reading the discussion and i have a pragmatic question.
Why ASF doesnt join to TDF and better Why TDF join to ASF using their
code governance to develop one unique produticvity plataform called
LibreOffice and that could be used commercialy when properly customiz
Hi,
Am 04.06.2011 18:41, schrieb Ian Lynch:
On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconiwrote:
Is it sure there will be a *product*?
I think IBM need it for symphony so on those grounds alone I'd say there
will be code licensed so that it can be used in that product as a minimum.
Let me rephras
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 Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>>
>>> I should think there is probably
>>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
>>> such as tax relief or
On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>
>> I should think there is probably
>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
>> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
>
> Oracle
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
On 5 June 2011 12:33, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Marc Paré wrote (05-06-11 12:37)
>
> Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our
>> great product
>> [...]
>>
>
> ;-) True there's a lot to do. But I appreciate the interest of the ASF
> people. They are interested in our views
On 5 June 2011 10:04, e-letter wrote:
> DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
> of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
> product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
> imminent in apache OO, they can make a p
Marc Paré wrote (05-06-11 12:37)
Ahem .., or we could just ignore our ASF lurkers, keep working on our
great product
[...]
;-) True there's a lot to do. But I appreciate the interest of the ASF
people. They are interested in our views and processes and do answer
questions we have.
--
- C
On 5 June 2011 09:19, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> "Don't you think that is a bit over-paranoid?"
>
> I don't think he is.
>
> "If OOo was so valuable how come they didn't actually sell it off to
> someone
> like IBM for real dollars?"
>
> How do I know that it did not happen?
Because such transac
Le 2011-06-05 05:04, e-letter a écrit :
DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposa
DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature
to be copied/impro
st more straight forwardly, with a much more polish PR spin on
it.
So if you had objection to contribute to Oracle under these terms you should
be just as reluctant to contribute anything under the Apache License.
Norbert
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfound
Hi *,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>
>> I should think there is probably
>> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
>> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
On 4 June 2011 18:54, Eduardo Alexandre wrote:
> 2011/6/4 Ian Lynch
>
> > On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
> > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Gianluca, Allen,
> > >
> > > My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw
> analysis.
> > > Allen con
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> I should think there is probably
> broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
> such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.
Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it
2011/6/4 Ian Lynch
> On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
> charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Gianluca, Allen,
> >
> > My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
> > Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
> > anyt
Ian,
I'm not questionning the intent, I observe an interesting legal feature that
I believe people should be aware of.
Best,
Charles.
Le 4 juin 2011, 7:34 PM, "Ian Lynch" a écrit :
On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > Gianluca, Allen, > > M
On 4 June 2011 17:33, Charles-H. Schulz <
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Gianluca, Allen,
>
> My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
> Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
> anything now to openoffice means to cont
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:41:23, Ian Lynch
ha scritto:
Agreed, the IBM proprietary product would be a different beast from LO.
But
let's face it there are already many OOo variants out there. I don't
think
that changes that much. I think Michael's point about which code
contribut
Yes.
Charles.
Le 4 juin 2011, 6:37 PM, "Gianluca Turconi" a
écrit :
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:33:26, Charles-H. Schulz <
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> ha scritto:
> My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
I'm reading the Groklaw article right
On 4 June 2011 17:29, Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 17:59:04, Ian Lynch
> ha scritto:
>
>
> That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those
>> with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code
>> don't have to yet still
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:33:26, Charles-H. Schulz
ha scritto:
My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
I'm reading the Groklaw article right now. is this
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011060314010442
isn't it?
Regards,
Gianluca
--
L
Gianluca, Allen,
My doubt comes from the article in the Register and the Groklaw analysis.
Allen confirmed my suspicions. I understand, then, that contributing
anything now to openoffice means to contribute it to Oracle.
Best,
charles.
Le 4 juin 2011, 6:26 PM, "Gianluca Turconi" a
écrit :
In
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 17:59:04, Ian Lynch
ha scritto:
That is why we need to see if it is possible to cooperate such that those
with a philosphical aversion to contributing to the Apache licensed code
don't have to yet still achieve some coherence in the code base itself.
It
seems
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:14:16, Allen Pulsifer
ha scritto:
1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to
distribute
the OpenOffice code under the Apache License. (To answer the question
Charles just posted, Oracle has retained ownership of the copyrights, and
In data 04 giugno 2011 alle ore 18:06:34, Charles-H. Schulz
ha scritto:
Apologies for top posting, I'm on my phone. Perhaps did I get confused
for a
moment but I hear that Oracle will in fact retain the copyright on the
Openoffice codebase
I've read in the Apache list that Oracle will ret
On 4 June 2011 16:47, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote:
> Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go
> to
> Apache and say "Please let us have that?"
>
It's a good question. I suspect not now - OOo is not yet even accepted into
the incubator at Apache. Depends on what Orac
> Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go
to Apache and say "Please let us have that?"
Hello Zaphod,
There are two pieces to Oracle's donation:
1. Oracle has granted the Apache Software Foundation a license to distribute
the OpenOffice code under the Apache Lice
Hello everyone,
Apologies for top posting, I'm on my phone. Perhaps did I get confused for a
moment but I hear that Oracle will in fact retain the copyright on the
Openoffice codebase. Anyone can infirm/confirm?
Best,
Charles.
Le 4 juin 2011, 5:59 PM, "Eduardo Alexandre" a
écrit :
Oracle has r
Oracle has rejected the invitation e. .. passed the code to Apache!
Something motivated move to Apache and not to TDF.
The invitation for Oracle can be done for the Apache?
If yes, could be on the condition of maintaining a software under the GPL?
Eduardo Alexandre
2011/6
Is it possible to allow Oracle to donate to Apache and then for TDF to go to
Apache and say "Please let us have that?"
Oracle are code-dumping because the community left them standing alone.
Oracle are acting as generous benefactors but may end up splitting the OS
community over this one. We do n
Hi Everyone,
This is my first post on this discussion list. I am not into the deep
things of licensing, but I have kept an eye open to understand it
better. This discussion list is helping me understand the whole
situation better.
I may be wrong in my opinion, so I am open to change.
I belie
Simos Xenitellis ha scritto:
Just like the Linux kernel is copyleft (GPL) and everyone contributes
to a single project, OpenOffice/LibreOffice should be copyleft, so
that all work goes to one place and is able grow fast.
BTW, LibreOffice code is even *LGPL*/MPL, enough corporation friendly, I
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eduardo Alexandre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my opinion, after all history involving OpenOffice, the ideal would be that
> this code was donated to the TDF. Everything under the GPL.
>
> With the software under the Apache license, we can not "work directly" in
> LibreOffic
2011/6/4 Gianluca Turconi
> Yes, there may be coordination between TDF and Apache OOo development ("I
> give you something, you give me something"), but a direct contribution to
> Apache OOo is rather risky ("I give you something and... ehi, you have no
> duty to give me something back!" accordin
Allen Pulsifer ha scritto:
So what I would like to see is an many LibreOffice people at the table as
possible. If possible, I would like to see LibreOffice people dominating
the Apache OpenOffice community to get as much out of the project as we can.
Firstly, I've to say that I'm happy Oracle
Hi,
In my opinion, after all history involving OpenOffice, the ideal would be that
this code was donated to the TDF. Everything under the GPL.
With the software under the Apache license, we can not "work directly" in
LibreOffice because they can not use our effort due to license GPL-Apache.
Thus
Hello All,
I'm going to try to address as many of the concerns raised as I can in one
email.
I'm not suggesting that anyone go work for IBM. In fact, I'm suggesting
just the opposite; I'm suggesting that we all work together to get IBM
working for us.
Here's the deal. IBM is the main proponent
48 matches
Mail list logo
