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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM:
The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know
a few
OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that
extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as
that'll
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:08 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM:
The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know
a few
OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that
extent
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 09:13:24 PM:
I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream
deliverable.
It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It
would be great if a private company does this. It would be good of a
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 09:13:24 PM:
I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream
deliverable.
It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It
would be
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/05/2011 09:42:14 PM:
From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: 06/05/2011 09:43 PM
Subject: Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a division
of markets conversation?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM,
I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this
place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand
why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the
LibreOffice part of the OOo community right from the start.
S.
On Jun 6,
IANAL, but since neither the ASF nor the TDF have any authority to compel
their
members to behave in any certain way, and since the ASF is technically made
up
exclusively of individuals (as I understand it) this seems way off base to
me. This
isn't IBM and Novell discussing dividing up a market,
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
But I am very very very concerned that this conversation is starting to
cross over into a division of market conversation, which has stiff
penalties under US and international competition law. Open source work,
like standards, is
The problem here is that Rob and Sam and other well-known employees are being
addressed as IBM employees here and even called to account for their employer's
behavior and intentions by some of the participants. I suggest that the best
way to deal with those requests is to meet them with
Right. In short, there is no way to divide the market when you're
talking about ALv2 licensing. Everybody has equal access to very
permissively-licensed software.
It is not a worry. Move along, please.
Cheers,
-g
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 23:51, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
On 6/5/2011 9:33 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this
place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand
why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the
LibreOffice part of the OOo
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
The problem here is that Rob and Sam and other well-known employees are being
addressed as IBM employees here
I perceive Sam answers and arguments to be consistent with the 'I am
an individual member of Apache'
I take Rob to mean that he has to deflect that kind of conversation. And he
probably has to think about distancing himself from such conversations of
others. Perhaps he could be better at it. Does it really matter? (Not being a
corporate employee of any flavor, I consider myself free to
Am 06.06.2011 03:08, schrieb robert_w...@us.ibm.com:
But I am very very very concerned that this conversation is starting to
cross over into a division of market conversation, which has stiff
penalties under US and international competition law. Open source work,
like standards, is work done
27 matches
Mail list logo
