Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
On 2/23/11 12:25 AM, Valter Mura wrote:
In data giovedì 13 gennaio 2011 22:53:59, Fabián Rodríguez ha scritto:
On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com
Why not license it
In data giovedì 13 gennaio 2011 22:53:59, Fabián Rodríguez ha scritto:
On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow
us to put
On 2/23/11 12:25 AM, Valter Mura wrote:
In data giovedì 13 gennaio 2011 22:53:59, Fabián Rodríguez ha scritto:
On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com
Why not license it under an appropriate
Jonathan,
You should also ask all the other devs now :-)
What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on this...
Best,
Charles.
Le Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:27:17 +0100,
Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com a écrit :
I know an iphone dev, and he has told me the review process
Hello Bob,
Le Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:18:17 -0700,
Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net a écrit :
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 04:37:55PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-01-12 12:25 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :
The devs are more than welcome to comment
What do some of the big boys think?
On 01/17/2011 05:32 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Jonathan,
You should also ask all the other devs now :-)
What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on this...
Best,
Charles.
Le Fri, 14 Jan 2011
Many of them are not here (too much traffic).
Let's see if I can raise this at one of our next SC calls. We're
really busy with other stuff, but...
best,
Charles.
Le Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:39:13 +0100,
Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com a écrit :
The devs are more than welcome to comment
Just signed up for the SC mailing list ill try join the next meeting if
thats possible.
On 01/17/2011 06:00 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Many of them are not here (too much traffic).
Let's see if I can raise this at one of our next SC calls. We're
really busy with other stuff, but...
best,
Alex.
I hope nothing too bad happened to you...
Take care
Charles.
Le 17 janv. 2011, 7:21 PM, sophie gautier.sop...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 17/01/2011 21:14, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
[...]
This lawyer is busy trying to find time to get its head round the draft
TM usage policy/guide...
On 2011-01-12 12:25 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :
And please tell me, what was uncivil about my post?
The tone of your post Larry. Please re-read it.
Fwiw Larry, I circular filed your email address a while back
On 2011-01-13 11:08 AM, todd rme wrote:
and they have made it quite clear they are totally opposed to the
existence of Libo.
When/where did they make this 'quite clear'? I seem to recall the
opposite (they were fine with it).
--
Best regards,
Charles
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 04:37:55PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2011-01-12 12:25 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :
And please tell me, what was uncivil about my post?
The tone of your post Larry. Please
I know an iphone dev, and he has told me the review process does take
time, but i think in time this app store will be just as good as the app
store found on the iphone. I am more then willing to head up a team to
get this ball moving in regards to getting permission from oracle to
relicense
Mirek LO is a separate entity from Oracle, they just forked OOo and are
taking it down a different bath with a different name.
On 1/12/11 3:49 PM, Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow us to put
it
Hi Jonathan, everyone,
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com
Mirek LO is a separate entity from Oracle, they just forked OOo and are
taking it down a different bath with a different name.
I know that, but most of the code of LibreOffice comes from Oracle, and
therefore if LibO
You would still need permission even though its a fork of the original code?
On 1/13/11 10:30 AM, Mirek M. wrote:
Hi Jonathan, everyone,
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com
Mirek LO is a separate entity from Oracle, they just forked OOo and are
taking it down a different bath
Hi,
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com:
You would still need permission even though its a fork of the original code?
yes, since the original contributors agreed to use a specific license.
This cannot changed without consent from those people.
Sigrid
--
Unsubscribe
In all honesty would they object to it?
On 1/13/11 11:46 AM, Sigrid Carrera wrote:
Hi,
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com:
You would still need permission even though its a fork of the original code?
yes, since the original contributors agreed to use a specific license.
This
Hey Jonathan,
1) Sigrid is right, we would need to ask for Oracle to relicense.
2) The new, non-Oracle patches are however licensed under a dual (L)GPL
v3 + (note the + which allows us to upgrade) and MPL + as we found we
had several code lines written under that license inside the existing
OOo
If they are considering pulling the plug on the OOo line they would be
on our side. I think its worth a shot in my honest opinion.
On 01/13/2011 01:19 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Hey Jonathan,
1) Sigrid is right, we would need to ask for Oracle to relicense.
2) The new, non-Oracle patches
Todd no there was no announcement, but why have exactly the same office
suite out there, they might actually end up pulling the plug once LO
gets going quite well.
On 1/13/11 5:00 PM, todd rme wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
eagles051...@gmail.com wrote:
If they
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
eagles051...@gmail.com wrote:
Todd no there was no announcement, but why have exactly the same office
suite out there, they might actually end up pulling the plug once LO gets
going quite well.
Part of what they bought when they bought Sun
2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com
You would still need permission even though its a fork of the original
code?
Yes.
The LGPL license states that:
If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a facility
refers to a function or data to be supplied by an
On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow
us to put
it in the app store? would that mean we would need to remove the
GPL or can
Being a mac user myself, i found out about OOo through word of mouth as
well as when i started working with Linux. i found out it had installers
for other OS's and i went from there. i usually promote through word of
mouth be it mac windows Linux users.
On 1/13/11 10:53 PM, Fabián Rodríguez
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow us to
put it in the app store? would that mean we would need to remove the GPL
or can it be dual licensed to go on the app store?
On 01/08/2011 01:46 PM, Charles.h.Schulz wrote:
Ben,
To be frank I would be very tempted by
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow us to put
it in the app store? would that mean we would need to remove the GPL or can
it be dual licensed to go on the app store?
I'm no expert, but as I understand it,
Lots of apps available can be found for free. the cost of the app is up
to the developer if s/he want to put it up for free. I think LO could be
a model example to other OSS projects that this is an opportunity for
them to increase their following.
On 01/12/2011 05:35 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
Larry,
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:35:06 -0600,
Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would
allow us to put it in the app store? would
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 2011/01/12 11:00 AM Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Please let me reiterate, Larry, that the tone of our discussion on
the mailing lists should be civil. Therefore, understand that not
everyone shares your
On 11-01-07 06:06 PM, Benjamin Horst wrote:
[...]
Thus, it does not appear that Apple would block LibO because of our LGPL
license (Wesnoth is GPL v2). The FSF is very unhappy with the App Store, but
this does not appear to be a dealbreaker if we wish to go ahead with it.
-Ben
Benjamin
Hi
Am 08.01.11 14:23, schrieb Fabián Rodríguez:
Apple won't likely block the app until the FSF or its author (as
happened with VLC) demands that they comply with the licenses. If/when
that happens is another story.
Concerning VCL: ...Rémi Denis-Courmont waged a one-man campaign against
On 11-01-06 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote:
I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but
seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total
control over the software you are allowed to install on your own
Larry,
Let me remind you that we expect courtesy on our lists.
Thank you,
Charles.
Le 7 janv. 2011, 6:55 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 2011/01/07 9:38 AM Fabián Rodríguez wrote: You're right, at least
for now. Apple controls i...
Your unsubstantiated idle speculation
2011/1/7 Fabián Rodríguez magic...@member.fsf.org
On 11-01-06 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote:
I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but
seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total
control over the
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:22:21PM +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Larry,
Let me remind you that we expect courtesy on our lists.
What was posted was in no way discourteous. You're interpreting
bluntness as discourtesy.
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
If you think you're getting free
Ok that's it last message I read on this thread
My impression
JAVA = NO APP STORE
LIBREOFFICE = JAVA
therefore (for the near future)
LIBREOFFICE = NO APP STORE
Thanks guys , I really hoped this would happen, but, alas life is tough ;)
Rogerio
2011/1/7 Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net
On
I was told there is an issue with mac and the GPL and LGPL licensing.
not sure what exactly though.
On 1/7/11 8:26 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/07 12:57 AM Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
Someone also mentioned there are issues with GPL licensing that Apple
doesn't seem to like :-/
And the
On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
I was told there is an issue with mac and the GPL and LGPL licensing. not
sure what exactly though.
Some quick reading shows the issue is not at all clear. For example, the
Wesnoth community has debated this in depth, but the ultimate
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote:
I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but
seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total
control over the software you are
Someone also mentioned there are issues with GPL licensing that Apple
doesn't seem to like :-/
On 1/7/11 6:49 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/06 11:05 PM todd rme wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Larry
Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com wrote:
Apple does not control what software I
41 matches
Mail list logo
