Maybe it's about perception. Most organisations have a culture that has at
least some degree of interpretation. If you want something clear cut and
defined in such a way as to have no scope for interpretation you lose
flexibility. Even the law gets interpretation. So perhaps its just a matter
of
On 13 December 2011 10:23, seba.wag...@gmail.com seba.wag...@gmail.comwrote:
How does the ASF deal with requests from companies that would like to get a
certificate as reseller of a software?
Are (Podling) Projects allowed to organize a Certification program for
distributors and collect
Sorry for ignorance but what does binding - non-binding mean?
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England
On 10 June 2011 17:49, Davanum Srinivas dava...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon,
Anyone interested can VOTE. If u see some of the votes they have
(binding) in the text, those are from folks on the incubator pmc.
Ultimately if we see a whole bunch of -1's then we check which way the
pmc voted to
On 8 June 2011 08:43, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
wrote:
[...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
I think it would be good if the proposed committers who have not yet done
so, could post a quick note to the list, to introduce yourself and your
interest in this project. Think of this as an opportunity to introduce
yourself to your future collaborators on Apache OpenOffice.
Ian Lynch
On 8 June 2011 22:50, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Dave Fisher wrote:
Your donation will go directly towards helping this project. Some of the
ways
in which your funds might be used include:
• Hiring independent developers to work with OpenOffice.org.
• Paying
On 7 June 2011 06:49, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
With OOo the company was nasty and people went away and were happy.
The company wants the project at the ASF, and some people complain
now. After all I never really heard the words I want it at the ASF
from somebody with OOo
Note, I've signed up as a mentor on the proposal.
We need to convince Ian Lynch to get involved too (if he's not already),
but I'll work on him later ;-)
So far, Ian never helped us, but who knows :-)
You might remember we did talk a few months back. My problem is simply that
getting
On 7 June 2011 16:08, Volker Merschmann merschm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Robert,
2011/6/7 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com
wrote:
Tomorrow, the OpenOffice.org Community Council will hold a meeting to
On 7 June 2011 16:27, Volker Merschmann merschm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ian,
2011/6/7 Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com:
On 7 June 2011 16:08, Volker Merschmann merschm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Robert,
2011/6/7 Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8
and another one:
Der Klügere gibt nach.
But, please,
everyone, let's not focus on the past, and let's not get personal or
insulting. It simply doesn't help anyone.
Peace,
Gut gemacht. ;-)
Vorwärts und aufwärts
(Hope that translated ok, if not I'll stick to guten morgen and
2011/6/7 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net
It is only that you have at a rather low-traffic apache list guests who are
used to discuss on high-traffic lists. And discussion is often with lots of
emotion (but seems to clam down).
Ah, nostalgia, it's just like the good old days on the OOo
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
On 6 June 2011 18:09, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
Le 6 juin 11 à 19:00, Ian Lynch a écrit :
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
On 5 June 2011 20:04, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
So I agree that supporting end users is critical, but I think the way that
this is done in practice, does not necessarily require great centralized
planning.
I'd say too much centralised planning for end user support is probably a
backward
On 5 June 2011 18:47, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
In general, I'm avoiding the messages which are entirely based on the
one true license... but I think there is one interesting point to be
raised here...
But I don't see any licensing argument for LibreOffice to even try
On 5 June 2011 21:59, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
It is amazing how much paperwork is involved, at a large corporation, to
enable such things.
Good reason to set up your own company ;-)
On 4 June 2011 11:33, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org
Which is no problem for me, but obviously I
On 4 June 2011 12:19, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartza.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version
On 4 June 2011 13:47, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouwsoo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
not an appropriate choice
On 4 June 2011 12:52, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wote:
Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties,
or whatever...
There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that I have done
wrong, or did not do,
or
On 4 June 2011 15:46, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
While other choices may make sense depending on the
specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a
On 4 June 2011 16:54, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is
not a value judgement.
Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache
On 4 June 2011 13:37, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms
Maybe stop lurking :-) Your contributions will be valuable
On 4 Jun 2011 22:06, Manfred A. Reiter ma.rei...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-)
## Manfred
Agreed. The main problem is if say the majority of knowledgeable developers
only want their work licensed copyleft.
On 4 Jun 2011 23:50, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote:
On 6/4/2011 11:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it shoul...
The code was
On 3 June 2011 14:31, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
(3) There is even talk as to why? I'm also curious as to why they
would
need or want to transfer the project to Apache.
Only the person who made that decision knows the answer, and if you ask
them, you might get an
Hi Florian,
I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
at Apache or any other entity.
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure
On 3 June 2011 17:16, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF
On 3 June 2011 18:21, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote:
Noel J. Bergman:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license
On 3 June 2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
ideological division as a given...
Well,
Reality is what matters. So let's make the best reality possible :-)
On 3 Jun 2011 23:15, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Hi Rob, all,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (02-06-11 21:34)
If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
then I suspect this is with a very low level...
I know
In the long run we are all dead ;-) So let's concentrate on the short run to
start with.
On 4 Jun 2011 01:24, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:1...
However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to
On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in
addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the
proposal on the wiki.
I'm not likely to commit code. I run
On 2 June 2011 14:27, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 09:12:10 AM:
From: Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: 06/02/2011 09:12 AM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein gst
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
Seems to me the main issue is
On 2 June 2011 17:18, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
On 2 June 2011 21:22, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Florian Effenberger wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
If there is a community split, that decision will rest solely on those
who choose not to join our all-inclusive environment.
So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo
46 matches
Mail list logo
