On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this
project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should
and shouldn't devote that time and energy to?
I am just a volunteer
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd,
was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior to the creation
of the Apache Software Foundation*?
Well, a quick answer is that we can't make a release that requires
code under a license less permissive than ALv2. Releasing a tarball
of the entry code would most likely not fulfill that requirement.
That's why it gets a bit tricky.
The meta-answer is that we don't want to surprise downstream
Whatever. This is just not a concern. Please end this thread. There is
no problem, so this is just noise.
-g
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 00:44, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
The problem here is that
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd,
was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior to the
Am 06.06.2011 03:56, schrieb robert_w...@us.ibm.com:
There are limits to what competitors can do to divide markets among
themselves. IANL, of
course, but this smells very bad, and I suggest we don't broach the topic
again, unless cleared by ASF Legal Affairs. I myself will withdraw from
this
On 6/5/11 11:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this
project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should
and shouldn't devote that
Hi,
Le 6 juin 11 à 02:28, William A. Rowe Jr. a écrit :
Because Oracle and TDF, in confidential negotiations, could not
come to an agreement.
Also that's one more reason why OpenOffice.org should be hosted by
the Apache Foundation.
For the memory, LibreOffice and TDF have been created
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd,
was
On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 12:47 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this
project, so exactly who the hell are you to
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 6 Jun 2011, at 02:49, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard.
Did you know that
Am 06.06.2011 08:22, schrieb Greg Stein:
This is just not a concern. Please end this thread. There is
no problem, so this is just noise.
I disagree.
The issue is not if there is a legal problem but if people working for
IBM state that it might be one.
That might have a potentially severe
Hey. Feel free to spin your theories.
It just isn't possible to divide markets around ALv2 code.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 03:10, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
Am 06.06.2011 08:22, schrieb Greg Stein:
This is just not a concern. Please end this thread. There is
no problem, so this
I don't
know why people bother to put the Apache text at the top of every
file, when someone else can just as quickly remove / relicense it.
PS Have you read the Apache License?
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
Apache Synapse PMC Chair
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/02/2011 09:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Hi Italo
Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
south in OOo, but before TDF was formed, Oracle had done what it
just did: donate the code and
Podling PMCs, please can you redistribute the below to your mailing lists
etc, thank you kindly, anyone else , read on ...
-
The Apache Software Foundation (ASF)'s Travel Assistance Committee (TAC) is
now accepting applications for ApacheCon North America 2011, 7-11 November
in Vancouver
Am 06.06.2011 09:25, schrieb Greg Stein:
Hey. Feel free to spin your theories.
Thanks.
It just isn't possible to divide markets around ALv2 code.
Great if that is so. But if true or not: it is not even an answer to the
question raised by Rob.
I think that you completely misunderstand how
On 6 June 2011 08:25, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey. Feel free to spin your theories.
It just isn't possible to divide markets around ALv2 code.
We had a lot of these competition discussions/arguments with BECTA in the
UK. They never grasped that FOSS is not a product in the sense
On 6 Jun 2011, at 09:13, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Am 06.06.2011 09:25, schrieb Greg Stein:
One of the main topics of the whole discussion regarding the
OpenOffice.org incubation proposal was and is collaboration with TDF /
LO. And now the first initial committer from IBM in the proposal
states
I guess if I get it correct the point in here is that most of us are
legal layman and thus it's not necessarily efficient if we try to sort
out legal concerns on our own. Instead this is supposed to be IP and
patent attorney business from my PoV. If assistance in this regards is
required it might
Christian Lippka schreef:
Am 06.06.2011 00:28, schrieb Simon Brouwer:
Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef:
Hi Ralph,
Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the
traffic
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:45 AM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote:
If IBM has legal concerns in this regards they may involve their own
IP and patent attorney stuff IBM-internally.
I really didn't want to participate in this thread, and like Greg wish
it would end, but I will state a
Or rather, the incubator needs to evaluate current proposals on its current
methodology, and (in a quiet time between proposals) generate more specific
criteria for incubation, independent of any particular proposal. I just
find it rude to change the rules of the game during the match.
That
Forwarding as requested.
- Sam Ruby
-- Forwarded message --
From: Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:45 AM
Subject: [tdf-discuss] Code covered by the Oracle grant (was: Proposal
to join Apache OpenOffice)
To:
Hi,
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote on 2011-06-06 02.28:
Because Oracle and TDF, in confidential negotiations, could not come to
an agreement. And I think that's all that need be said on the matter.
well, I guess it has been mentioned on this list before, but let me
state it this way:
What TDF
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The purpose of this list is not to explain how to do either of these.
Exactly. Can we please kill off this thread already? It doesn't seem
to add any value to the OOo discussion.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2011 08:02, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
AIUI the TDF uses the LGPL. Like the Apache License (AL), the LGPL
also allows proprietary software to be built on top. So, why would you
break your rule for a TDF project but not an ASF one?
It
On 6 Jun 2011, at 10:51, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:45 AM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote:
If IBM has legal concerns in this regards they may involve their own
IP and patent attorney stuff IBM-internally.
I really didn't want to participate in this thread, and like
On 6 June 2011 11:34, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org wrote:
IMHO - if there is any such risk - we 1) should both help the regulators
understand the situation better and 2) do this in such a transparent way
that members of our communities are better equipped to have their part of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/06/2011 19:22, Sam Ruby wrote:
Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and
I read it as a bona fide attempt by IBM to shove the project down the
throat of The Apache Foundation.
I hope we don't need to deliberate for
Hi,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 02.37:
And I remind you of this response I gave you before:
http://markmail.org/message/wwoxum4tuvdg5q3p
I guess we're running in circles. However, I have made my points and
hopefully responded to some rumors spreading (like: TDF is no choice
Hi Sam,
Sam Ruby wrote on 2011-06-06 02.02:
I can tell you that those decisions are made above Rob's and my pay
grades. Way above.
maybe - looking behind corporate walls, so to say, is sometimes a bit
complicated. I don't personally blame anyone for this, but reading some
rumors or
Dear All,
I put myself on the initial committers list because I want to help the
Apache OpenOffice Project in some way I can.
As nearly nobody should know my name, I'll introduce myself briefly:
Since 2005 I tried to support OOo by helping on forums and mailing
lists, writing and co-writing a
On 6 June 2011 12:43, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.orgwrote:
given that the granted source code seems to be lacking important parts, and
there is no real idea on how to provide continuity for users (e.g. releasing
OOo 3.4.0). All of this will do *much* harm, IMHO even more
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:37 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM:
From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: 06/05/2011 07:50 PM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I would recommend altering the proposal. We have the set of files
specified in the software grant. During incubation, we will seek a
grant to the following groups of code: bullet
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
The first step to abandoning the Apache license is for others to
recognize like you have that it is not a free/libre license. I don't
know why people bother to put the Apache text at the top of every
file, when someone else can just as
On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP
server.
It is official: Keith is a troll.
Do not feed.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Christoph Jopp wrote:
Dear All,
I put myself on the initial committers list because I want to help the
Apache OpenOffice Project in some way I can.
Welcome!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I would recommend altering the proposal. We have the set of files
specified in the software grant. During
Like most aspects of Apache, it's easier to ask for forgiveness
than to seek permission, epecially when we don't all agree on
the necessity of it ;-).
- Original Message
From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 9:02:00 AM
Am 06.06.2011 15:01, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Christoph Jopp wrote:
Dear All,
I put myself on the initial committers list because I want to help the
Apache OpenOffice Project in some way I can.
Welcome!
On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I would recommend altering the proposal. We have the set
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Like most aspects of Apache, it's easier to ask for forgiveness
than to seek permission, epecially when we don't all agree on
the necessity of it ;-).
Given I had actually asked for and received permission from the
FWIW, IMO it's Sam's call as he is the sponsor. Jim
is just trying to avoid a situation where people who
aren't signed up for the project start placing conditions
on it. To my knowledge you haven't done that, and
as you remarked you got permission to make your edits
from the sponsor.
Don't
That's correct... I had hoped that my follow-up had made
that clear.
On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
FWIW, IMO it's Sam's call as he is the sponsor. Jim
is just trying to avoid a situation where people who
aren't signed up for the project start placing conditions
on it. To
Hi Ross,
Apologies, I just retrieved the mail one minute ago, sorting the n
750 mails I received from this list.
Le 2 juin 11 à 12:13, Ross Gardler a écrit :
On 02/06/2011 10:30, eric b wrote:
Hi,
For the record, I added the Education Project idea on the wiki page
Florian,
Yes, I see the licensing topic and that there are different views on that.
However, I don't know if that requires to set-up all community efforts a
second time. Simon posted one possible creative solution. Setting up a
parallel project IMHO is wrong.
-Can you help me to understand this
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
That's correct... I had hoped that my follow-up had made
that clear.
Just catching up on email after grabbing a quick breakfast.
I did give people permission to make uncontroversial changes, and
asked them to discuss here
Bah. It is solving a nonexistent problem. Sit back, and enjoy life instead.
On Jun 6, 2011 6:59 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 June 2011 11:34, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org wrote:
IMHO - if there is any such risk - we 1) should both help the regulators
understand
On 6/6/2011 4:55 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
that being said - can OOo really be treated like each other podling? I
start to feel it might not be the case. Can we change the rules while
the game? Yes, we can. I would be very dissappointed if we would obey
blindly to our own rules just
- Original Message
From: toki toki.kant...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 6:25:30 AM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2011 08:02, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
Am 06.06.2011 12:02, schrieb Christian Lohmaier
[...]
- Sam Ruby
raw numbers:
wc -l repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst
69076 repo.lst
39616 sorted_ooo.lst
So even calling this seems to include the full repo and that even
twice is either with malicious intent, or with no clue. Christian
Lippka
On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
things.
Carrots and sticks.
Is Apache historically flexible in this area? I had the
I think we have to recognize needs of the existing ecosystem
before we go blindly applying our newly-minted trademark
policy. We've become rather keen on protecting our marks
from encroachment from commercial endeavors, and that will
certainly carry over to OOo.
- Original Message
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Andy Brown a...@the-martin-byrd.net wrote:
Andy Brown wrote:
Hi all.
Hi Andy
This is my fist post here, been lurking from day one.
And today you've become a contributor :-)
As a user I am trying to understand somethings that are going on here.
1:
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitzphil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Wow. Did it occur to you that the
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka c...@lippka.com wrote:
While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my
understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But
this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations.
OK, I get that. I am pushing for the least that could possibly work in terms
of having a base under ALv2 that can then be refined, refactored, whatever, but
it captures the contribution in a form that is suitable to continue from,
however much it still needs to be wacked on. It might not
Hi,
Richard S. Hall wrote on 2011-06-06 16.19:
However, it seems like we have lost sight of the fact that TDF split the
community from OOo. Sure, Oracle is the perceived villain and TDF the
perceived good guy, but it doesn't change the fact that OOo created the
community in the first place.
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitzphil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Disclaimer: I
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil
On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
To the extent that OOo presents the incubator with something the ASF has
not faced, you are correct... these things we have no standards yet to
measure whether a podling should be accepted. To the extent that it is
On 6/6/11 10:33, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Richard S. Hall wrote on 2011-06-06 16.19:
However, it seems like we have lost sight of the fact that TDF split the
community from OOo. Sure, Oracle is the perceived villain and TDF the
perceived good guy, but it doesn't change the fact that OOo
Hi Ralph,
2011/6/6 Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
[...]
Under these conditions, I'll change my entry in the wiki.
done.
Manfred,
I wouldn't be so hasty. There are lots of opinions around here and we all
need a bit of a
- Original Message
From: Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 11:04:31 AM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
- Concentration on binaries: Apache projects are usually all about
source code. For example, Apache
Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org wrote on 06/06/2011 04:27:04
AM:
On 6 Jun 2011, at 09:13, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Am 06.06.2011 09:25, schrieb Greg Stein:
One of the main topics of the whole discussion regarding the
OpenOffice.org incubation proposal was and is collaboration
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote:
On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva
I'l hoping to be in Berlin for the ODF Plugfest there, July 14-15th. Would
it be worth while seeing if we can arrange a hackfest of some sort in
Berlin, either the day before, or over the weekend? LibreOffice guys
invited as well, of course.
Could also have some startup sessions, to review
On 6/6/11 11:26, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote:
On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org
On 6/6/11 2:48, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/5/11 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2011 13:58, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
things.
ROTFLMAO
At best, you are incredibly naive. Those policies will
On 6 June 2011 16:39, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote:
On 6/6/11 11:26, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org
wrote:
On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org
Hi Simos, *,
2011/6/6 Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote:
On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
Hi Richard, *
2011/6/6 Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org
[...]
Fact: Your employer provoked the
Nice job of decontextualization (typical troll tactic).
Here is what I was responding to:
- Original Message
From: toki toki.kant...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 6:25:30 AM
Subject: Re:
I'm on holiday reading from a phone. This has been said a dozen times already,
but still most emails are focussing on the wrong kinds of questions.
The code has been offered to the ASF
The ASF is arguably a good home.
Arguing whether it is or not is pointless. That's the home on offer.
TDF
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:46, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
...
And the natural extension is that if there is no home for the OOo code with
Apache where will it end up? That scenario is not without risk either.
As I've said elsewhere, I would lobby our Board for an unsupported
tarball of
On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:40 AM, toki wrote:
ROTFLMAO
At best, you are incredibly naive. Those policies will stop the
companies for all of one picosecond, if that long.
ladies and gentlemen, we have another troll...
Please don't feed.
On 6 June 2011 17:08, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:46, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
...
And the natural extension is that if there is no home for the OOo code
with
Apache where will it end up? That scenario is not without risk either.
As I've said
Dear TDFers,
I was on a long flight and came back to an immense number of mails
here and elsewhere on this topic, so please bear with me if this has
been brought up before, by someone else.
I vaguely recall the fork of OOo into LibreOffice, and if memory
serves me right it was due to escape
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 18.06:
The reality is that IBM employees wearing their IBM hats, have made it
crystal clear on the general@incubator list that IBM is going to force
The Apache Foundation to take the project.
How?
I am *not* saying you would be influenced or
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 12:08 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:46, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
...
And the natural extension is that if there is no home for the OOo code with
Apache where will it end up? That scenario is not without risk either.
As I've said
Hi Olivier,
Thank you for volunteering to be a mentor for the project. I have added you
to the list of nominated mentors on the proposal.
Thanks and Regards,
Arvind Prabhakar
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
Hello,
If you need more mentor, I can help.
Hello All,
I had a typo in my previous mail where I stated Unless there is any active
discussion regarding this proposal in the early part of next week, I would
like to call this to vote on Tuesday, June 14th.
The date mentioned here is off by a week and was not the intention. Instead
I would be
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:17, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 18.06:
The reality is that IBM employees wearing their IBM hats, have made it
crystal clear on the general@incubator list that IBM is going to force
The
On 6 June 2011 17:12, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
Was it already at that time known that Oracle was going with a liberal
license, and the fork was then a choice based in the ideological
differences in licensing?
If it was not, how would the people who forked then have reacted if
Well you made me a lot confused :D, but I thought you had your
reasons. Looking forward the vote tomorrow.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM, arv...@cloudera.com arv...@cloudera.com wrote:
Hello All,
I had a typo in my previous mail where I stated Unless there is any active
discussion regarding
On 6/6/11 6:17 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 18.06:
The reality is that IBM employees wearing their IBM hats, have made it
crystal clear on the general@incubator list that IBM is going to
force
The Apache Foundation to take the project.
How?
Hi Greg,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-06 18.36:
I'll repeat what Jim said: how do you think IBM can force us to take
the project? Bob can say whatever he'd like on his blog.
it wasn't me who stated that, so don't ask me. :-)
I stated with my previous mail that I do *not* think you are forced.
Hi,
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote on 2011-06-06 18.40:
Should The ASF made responsible for every comments made on the Internet
by people who are not even remotely connected to The ASF ?
no, and I didn't say that. Again, I just wanted to point out why people
believe things as we heard before. Don't
Hi Niclas,
Niclas Hedhman wrote on 2011-06-06 18.12:
I was on a long flight and came back to an immense number of mails
here and elsewhere on this topic, so please bear with me if this has
been brought up before, by someone else.
hope you had a safte trip, and I can feel with you - I had
Hi,
Kevin Lau wrote on 2011-06-06 15.35:
-Can you help me to understand this Simon posted one possible creative
solution?
It seems the discussion is making progress. I like to think this is
appropriate to be seen in Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are
we now?) thread than here.
fwiw, Bob Sutor is not a committer or on the incubator PMC or a member
of the ASF [1]. Here's the list of folks on the incubator PMC who will
vote on the proposal [2]
[1] http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
[2] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc
On Mon,
It looks like we've gotten many positive responses, and thus far have had no
issues brought up. We have 3 mentors signed up now, but if anyone else is
willing, we'd be interested in adding at most one or two more mentors.
Dicussion seem to have tapered off, so unless I hear otherwise, I plan on
On 6/6/11 6:47 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote on 2011-06-06 18.40:
Should The ASF made responsible for every comments made on the Internet
by people who are not even remotely connected to The ASF ?
no, and I didn't say that. Again, I just wanted to point out why
Look guys, this is going round in circles. I'm not an ASF or TDF member but
I spent quite a lot of time and effort on OOo and ODF in the past so I care
what happens. The fact is the software grant is made. My understanding is
that if the code goes into the incubator it does not even guarantee it
Hi Ross,
Thank you for sending this message from your phone.
It's very clear.
:)
On the other hand, if you feel you can work with us to find the best combined
poker hand, please continue with the many constructive discussions here. If
we can figure out the how? (or discover it's not
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
The software grant is a done deal. I happen to believe the proposal
will be accepted, but it is not a done deal.
Ah, okay - so the software grant exists independent from the incubation
result?
The
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
Look guys, this is going round in circles. I'm not an ASF or TDF member but
I spent quite a lot of time and effort on OOo and ODF in the past so I care
what happens. The fact is the software grant is made. My understanding is
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:46, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-06 18.36:
...
The software grant is a done deal. I happen to believe the proposal
will be accepted, but it is not a done deal.
Ah, okay - so the software grant exists independent
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
