Hi,
Simon Phipps wrote on 2011-06-18 20.15:
> The project names "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered
> trademarks of their host, [http://www.frodev.org Freies Office Deutschland
> e.V.], a non-profit organisation registered in Germany. The respective logos
> and icons use
Hi Simon,
Simon Brouwer wrote on 2011-06-18 17.48:
> Have a look at the first sentence on the homepage. It simply states that
> TDF is a Foundation, while strictly spoken, it isn't (yet). The lack of
> clear information about this on the website might lead outsiders to
> suspect that TDF want to
Hi Christophe, *,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Christophe Strobbe
wrote:
> At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
>> wrote:
>> > At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> [...]
>> Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), ap
Hi Christian, All,
At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi Christoph, *,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
wrote:
> At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>
>> The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
>> contributing in a collaborative ma
Hi Christoph, *,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
wrote:
> At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>
>> The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
>> contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
>> Rob just mentioned on the apa
Hi Christian, All,
At 23:16 4-6-2011, 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 what code
> contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I
2011/6/22 Jesús Corrius :
>> I checked those files as well. They are all 'noarch' (do not contain
>> compiled programs; No Architecture),
>> and contain the same .png branding images.
>
> The license not only covers the code, also the images. So if those
> images are in the program, the source code
> I checked those files as well. They are all 'noarch' (do not contain
> compiled programs; No Architecture),
> and contain the same .png branding images.
The license not only covers the code, also the images. So if those
images are in the program, the source code must include them.
That's why th
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Sveinn í Felli wrote:
>
>
> Þann þri 21.jún 2011 12:46, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sveinn í Felli wrote:
>>>
>>> Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius:
>>
>> 1. We w
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 12:46, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sveinn í Felli wrote:
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
says that if we are intereste
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 12:11, skrifaði Sveinn í Felli:
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About
dialog box which
says that if we are interested in the source code, we
should read a
specific Wiki page,
fo
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sveinn í Felli wrote:
> Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
>>
>> 2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
>>
Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius:
1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
specific Wiki page,
for example
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Developmen
2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius :
>> 1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
>> says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
>> specific Wiki page,
>> for example
>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AvailabilityOfSourceCode
>
> I see a pro
Manfred Usselmann wrote:
> > I see a problem here. Usually GNU/Linux distributions make
> > modifications to the original source code. That means that the *real*
> > source code will be the one from your distro and not the one you can
> > download from the LibO website, hence the information will b
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:18:34 +0200
Jesús Corrius wrote:
> > 1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box
> > which says that if we are interested in the source code, we should
> > read a specific Wiki page,
> > for example
> > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Avai
> 1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
> says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
> specific Wiki page,
> for example
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AvailabilityOfSourceCode
I see a problem here. Usually GNU/Linux distr
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:22 PM, John LeMoyne Castle
wrote:
> Dennis, Tanstaafl,
>
> I take your point. Users that have 3.3.2 installed can only get the code
> for 3.3.3 from the website. As discussed above, I think this meets the
> spirit of the license but not the specific letter. Simon's ide
Dennis, Tanstaafl,
I take your point. Users that have 3.3.2 installed can only get the code
for 3.3.3 from the website. As discussed above, I think this meets the
spirit of the license but not the specific letter. Simon's idea about
downloading the repo at the 3.3.2 marker is a great one, but t
On 2011-06-18 5:39 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> And there is no better way to do this than have the 'git repositories'
> of the LibreOffice source code.
You were correct earlier - he is merely pointing out that nowhere in the
license agreement (I haven't read it so am not making the same claim)
d
On 18/06/2011 09:39, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> The spirit does go well beyond the letter.
> Ideally, the 'git repositories' should be what everyone gets, rather
> than a source code snapshot that has no source change history.
A couple of years ago I sent a question to FSF about meeting source co
- Original Message
> From: Simon Phipps
> On 18 Jun 2011, at 11:35, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> > Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
> >> 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
On 18 Jun 2011, at 11:35, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
>> 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
Simos Xenitellis wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
Ignoring the repetition on who is entitled to source code and how they are told
about it, I would like to know the answers to some very specific, tangible
matters closer to home. My question is basically wh
Op 18-6-2011 12:35, Florian Effenberger schreef:
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
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
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
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 Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM wrote:
>> Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a
>> much
>> healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with
>> each
>> other either.
>>
>
>
> I
] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
> OpenOffice))
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> wrote:
>> I didn't say I didn't know how to do it. I didn't say I wanted to build it.
>> This is about honoring the spirit of the free soft
: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL
enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
OpenOffice))
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I didn't say I didn't know how to do it. I didn't say I wanted to build it.
Original Message-
> From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 16:31
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL
> enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffi
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 16:31
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement
(Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
[ ... ]
> I
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> Ignoring the repetition on who is entitled to source code and how they are
> told about it, I would like to know the answers to some very specific,
> tangible matters closer to home. My question is basically whether the terms
> of a
ble way?
-Original Message-
From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 13:49
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re:
[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
On Fri,
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM, BRM wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Simos Xenitellis
...
>> Your views are not mainstream; if you want to gain traction, you should make
>>the effort
>> to subscribe to the gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these views
>>there.
>
> Does
- Original Message
> From: Simos Xenitellis
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM wrote:
> > DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it.
> >
> ...
> > Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he
received
> > from Customer E which mat
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM wrote:
> DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it.
>
...
> Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he received
> from Customer E which matches what Group C provided to Customer E.
>
I think your misconception
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 08:46 -0700, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM wrote:
>
> > And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have
> > been a
> > necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
> > revisionist history.
> >
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM wrote:
> And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have
> been a
> necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
> revisionist history.
>
LO was a fork, but that was the for many months ago.
>
> Yet, Call
- Original Message
> From: Keith Curtis
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 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 compellin
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
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 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 imp
- Original Message
> From: plino
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 10:12:01 AM
> Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re:
>[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
>
> @BRM sorry to bur
- Original Message
> From: Jim Jagielski
> 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 "
no one can enforce that law. But it is
still breaking the law even if you get away with it.
Let's keep the discussion realistic (or end it).
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/OFF-TOPIC-about-GPL-enforcement-Was-Re-tdf-discuss-Re-Libreoffice-Proposal-to
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?
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it.
- Original Message
> From: plino
> BRM wrote:
> >
> > Directly from the FSF, authors of the GPL. You must have a copy of the
> > written
> > offer in order to be entitled to receipt of the source.
> >
>
> It's am
Hi Allen,
So - first, I've enjoyed interacting with you over many years around
OO.o / LibreOffice :-) and I value many of your insights.
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 10:43 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> > Thorsten Behrens wrote:
..
> I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/OFF-TOPIC-about-GPL-enforcement-Was-Re-tdf-discuss-Re-Libreoffice-Proposal-to-join-Apache-OpenOffice-tp3074299p3075368.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:56 AM, BRM wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Simos Xenitellis
>> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
>> Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 6:31:25 PM
>> Subject: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re:
>>[
- Original Message
> From: Simos Xenitellis
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 6:31:25 PM
> Subject: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re:
>[Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
>
> On Fri, Jun 17,
tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
[ ... ]
Wrong. OOo, TDF/LO, etc may be making a public release. IBM, for example, may
not.
They are only releasing to people who _pay them_ for the product. _ONLY_ those
people (the ones they specifically distributed the product to) are
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
> wrote:
>>...
>>> The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
>>> the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
>>> those changes unless "that
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license
> that requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with
> the changes to my code that they make. ...
> PS: It is the case that neither the GPL nor APLv2 have such a
> compulsory conditi
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
wrote:
>...
>> The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
>> the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
>> those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.
>>
>> So you don't
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 15:50, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
>...
> If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license that
> requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with the changes to
> my code that they make.
No, you cannot.
Copyright Law applies to certain
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:49 AM, BRM wrote:
>
> So as Greg said, who has the rights (per the GPL) to receive the source is not
> necessarily the same as the community. The only people that have rights to
> receiving the source are the ones that the product was specifically
> distributed
> to. If
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino wrote:
>>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
>>> Ergo, Apache has
- Original Message
> From: todd rme
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 3:13:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
OpenOffice
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Ben
2011 12:05
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino wrote:
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> As Ben
+1
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:37
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra wrote:
> As
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 16 Jun 2011, at 17:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
> by now that
>> it is a lot easier to influence a proj
June 16, 2011 07:18
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
...
> End users do not care about
> who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, et
Greg Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra wrote:
As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino wrote:
>>
>> In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
>> GPL you MUST release the source as GPL
Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino wrote:
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
>> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
>>
>> This is why I think the
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra wrote:
> As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
> say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
> the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
> reports. I
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:37, Simon Phipps wrote:
>...
> And right there you have both reached a point so familiar that even I have
> written an article about it:
> http://webmink.com/essays/causality/
> "The fact it is still an open question after nearly 30 years of free and open
> source soft
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:27, plino wrote:
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> how can you say that Apache
>> "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you
>> still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
>> doesn't take anything from You.
>>
>
> Easy. Even a non-
As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must
say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in
the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug
reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being
- Original Message
> From: plino
> BRM wrote:
> >
> > Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could
> > take a
> > GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally
> > to
> > itself without ever contributing back to the community a
Augustine Souza wrote:
On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
...
End users do not care about
who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc. They
just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
needs.
Painting quite a poor picture of end users
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
>> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
>> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
>
>> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
>> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
>> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
>
>> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
On 16 Jun 2011, at 17:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
> by now that
>> it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
> and are working from
>> the inside rather of the outside
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know
by now that
> it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table
and are working from
> the inside rather of the outside. You could have also been one of those
persons with a se
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:58, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> You could have also
> been one of those persons with a seat at the table, and together, we would
> have had twice the voice as Rob Weir.
Excuse me? What are all the contributions I am making on that list? Chopped
liver?
S.
--
Unsubscribe ins
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice project
> is a competing project. You simply chose to view it that way.
> Simon Phipps wrote:
> The main proposer of the project, Rob Weir of IBM, clearly stated his
intent for it to be
> a competing project
Hello Allen.
I'm just an end user with low money incomes that likes to know about
the project but here are my opinions.
I see LibreOffice a success, the community surpassed problems and is
getting very popular. Why starting to make a project with a very
similar codebase at the last time instead j
On 6/16/11 4:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
So my all means, continue forward with your decision that your personal
story is what really matters. That is your prerogative. Meanwhile, the
LibreOffice project will never be what it could have been. The opportunity
that has been lost will never com
Hi Allen,
While I am rather tired of this combative thread of discussion and think it is
way overdue for it to stop, you make some statements that can't be left
unchallenged.
On 16 Jun 2011, at 15:43, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>
> Hello Thorsten,
>
> I do not agree with y
- Original Message
> From: plino
> Greg Stein wrote:
> > how can you say that Apache
> > "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you
> > still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
> > doesn't take anything from You.
> >
>
> Easy. Even a
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here t
There are end users that care of freedom in a broad sense. I'm one of
them, using Linux-based systems since late 90s :)
And we aren't so few, because the number is growing and specially in
this worldwide economical crisis. You can see by objective stadistics
that the adoption of FOSS is bigger in
On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
...
> End users do not care about
> who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc. They
> just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their
> needs.
Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are they really like that
On 16 Jun 2011, at 09:27, plino wrote:
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> how can you say that Apache
>> "removes rights from people's contributions"? As a developer, you
>> still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache
>> doesn't take anything from You.
>>
>
> Easy. Even a non-d
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 17:53, Thorsten Behrens
wrote:
>...
> Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come
> over to a different project, that likely noone here is really happy
> with, that was setup as a fait acompli, marketed as the "natural
> upstream", removes rights from
Hi Allen, *,
Allen Pulsifer schrieb:
> On that point, let me be clear: There are
> millions of potential users for OOo, LO, and open document formats.
> Many of those potential users work in companies, government agencies
> and other organizations that routinely trust Microsoft, Oracle, IBM
> an
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal
> the rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
>
Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come
over to a different p
Davide Dozza wrote:
> Sorry Allen but you are in contradiction. Before you say "Regardless of
who's fault" and at the end
> it seems you are accusing TDF to be the cause of the community fracture.
I made no accusations and assigned no fault. I'm also not interested in
assigning fault or blame. T
Il 15/06/2011 17:44, Allen Pulsifer ha scritto:
> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> ...you don't discuss e.g. trademark issues on a public list, if you want
> to stand a chance actually obtaining it.
>
> I can see how you might believe this, but I'm not sure it is grounded in
> fact or experience. In fa
[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
OpenOffice
>
> 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 noth
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > ...you don't discuss e.g. trademark issues on a public list, if you want
> to stand a chance actually obtaining it.
>
> I can see how you might believe this, but I'm not sure it is grounded in
> fact or experience.
>
Hi Allen, oh, I was referring
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> ...you don't discuss e.g. trademark issues on a public list, if you want
to stand a chance actually obtaining it.
I can see how you might believe this, but I'm not sure it is grounded in
fact or experience. In fact, look at where we ended up:
- Oracle pulled all resourc
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 Effenberge
Hi,
BRM wrote on 2011-06-15 15.47:
should be updated to reflect the legal reality that while TDF is being setup it
is an sub-entity of FroDeV; listing out who specifically owns the trademarks,
etc. That would go a long way in saying TDF is or is backed by an actual legal
hm, isn't this the exa
- Original Message
> From: Florian Effenberger
> Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-14 17.09:
> > It is simply that newbie's have NO UNDERSTANDING of this. Florian had
> > to explain all the details because they are not on the website.
>
> I guess the truth lies in between. :-)
>
> Indeed,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> May I suggest we "call time"[1] on this discussion please?
+1
> S.
>
> [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Time%20Gentlemen%20Please
- Sam Ruby
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Post
May I suggest we "call time"[1] on this discussion please?
S.
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Time%20Gentlemen%20Please
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List ar
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 "lea
Hi Greg,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-14 17.09:
It is simply that newbie's have NO UNDERSTANDING of this. Florian had
to explain all the details because they are not on the website.
I guess the truth lies in between. :-)
Indeed, we seem to lack some comprehensible page directly reachable with
1 - 100 of 238 matches
Mail list logo
