Posts such as:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive
stance.
It's a shame.
On 3 Jun 2011, at 21:14, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Posts such as:
>
>
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
>
> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
> as well as almost forcing the "other
Hi Jim, all,
Long time OpenOffice.org contributor in various areas. Mainly
LibreOffice since Sept. 2010. One of the founders there.
Now looking at a Thinderbird folder with more than 300 mails, of which
I've only read a few up until now :-)
Living in The Netherlands, so If I skip in an hour or
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:50:43PM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Hi Jim, all,
>
> I do not understand why that should be a shame.
> All I read is explanation of the situation, among which implicitly
> an important difference: the copy-left versus non copy-left. That is
> a personal style, choice that
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws wrote:
>...
> Jim Jagielski wrote (03-06-11 22:14)
>>
>> Posts such as:
>>
>>
>> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
>>
>> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived d
Michael is repeating some invariants that he and other LO/TDF people
have stated, politely and consistently, since the inception of this
discussion. They are committed to copyleft, they see dependencies with
copyleft, their vision of OO is copyleft. There's perfect symmetry
here: we're making publi
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 17:57, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Michael is repeating some invariants that he and other LO/TDF people
> have stated, politely and consistently, since the inception of this
> discussion. They are committed to copyleft, they see dependencies with
> copyleft, their vision of OO
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 23:48)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws wrote:
I do not understand why that should be a shame.
The article portrays Michael as a spokesperson for the LibreOffice
community. And then Michael proceeds to denigrate the effort here. It
I would not understand
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the
press about that (at this stage).
Meeks is being interviewed about what's going on around libreOffice.
I don't
What seems clear is that at least to start with we will have an apache
licensed product and a copy left product. Why not just accept this as
healthy diversity?
On 4 Jun 2011 00:42, "Cor Nouws" wrote:
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 23:48)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws wrote:
>> I do
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
>
>> That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
>> press.
>
> It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press
> about that (at this stage).
> Meeks is being inte
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" wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:1...
"However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
for the OO.o
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press
about that (at this stag
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 20:36, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23)
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
>...
>>> I don't see any smack in it. I read he is giving his opinion in a polite
>>> manner. (Have seen different quotes from him in the past ..). And also
>>> com
Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 08:36:20 PM:
>
> (So seeing Robs questionnaire: it won't be easy to get ground for many
> positive replies. But of course it is good to try. I even might step in
> with some suggestions, that however always tend to fail, since my mind
> does not take large corpora
>> "However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
>> for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said.
When I read that, I also did not see anything offensive. I believe when
Michael said that he was thinking of OOo as he knows it, which is a desktop
application. The ASF h
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:56)
rather than talk bad about
Still not get that 'bad' ;-)
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general
Cor Nouws wrote (04-06-11 01:49)
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the
press about that (at this stage).
Hmm, got that wrong I see now
http://www.net
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 misunderstood your
> statement about not talking to the press.
>
On 4 June 2011 11:33, Jim Jagielski 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 misunde
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski 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 misun
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 06:19:06AM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> Jagielski says what is "typical" for Apache is "building (or even
> "_re-building_") communities around those codebases."
Which is true. It does not say that TDF is not able to.
> ...
> He says that makes Apache the perfect place
On 4 June 2011 12:19, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski 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
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33)
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 misunderstood your
statem
On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33)
>> 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
>>>
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> I can see why some might read into those statements implications that
> probably were not intended. That is the problem with perspectives :-)
I used these quote to illustrate that and to put that in parallel with
the complaint about Michael Meeks
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 19:42)
I must have significantly misinterpreted the below:
"However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said. "They are
sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that
attempt
Hi Jim,
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 16:14 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
> as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive
> stance.
Hey ho; I see my name being taken intravenously ;-) so the longer quote
from a private
Michael,
Conclusion:
"I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project
in the long run."
Supporting statements:
"They are sufficiently confident and comfortable with their model that
attempting to negotiate over changing any core aspect of it (such as the
non-co
Noel,
I think your labels "Conclusion" and "Supporting statements" are incorrect,
and that might explain why you "fail to see how you draw the conclusion from
the supporting arguments". The paragraph in question may contain more than
one conclusion, and it may contain one or more opinions which t
Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51)
Conclusion:
"I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the OO.o project in
the long run."
Supporting statements:
[...]
Supporting explanation ;-)
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
--
-
Cor Nouws wrote (07-06-11 00:31)
Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51)
Conclusion:
"I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the
OO.o project in the long run."
Supporting statements:
[...]
Supporting explanation ;-)
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-gen
Cor Nouws wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote (06-06-11 23:51)
>> Conclusion:
>>
>> "I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for the
>> OO.o project in the long run."
>>
>> Supporting statements:
>> [...]
>
> Supporting explanation ;-)
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubat
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> I think your labels "Conclusion" and "Supporting statements" are incorrect
To the contrary, Cor indicates that I nailed the matter quite squarely.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-uns
Rather wondering why this is the one thread that won't die...
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>
> > I think your labels "Conclusion" and "Supporting statements" are
> incorrect
>
> To the contrary, Cor indicates that I nailed the matter quite square
Noel J. Bergman wrote (07-06-11 02:03)
Michael Meeks:
"I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for
the OO.o project in the long run."
You:
I agree; you draw the same inference that I do: he means that a
non-copyleft license is the reason for (predicted eventual) failure.
I
Hello everyone,
2011/6/7 Cor Nouws
> Noel J. Bergman wrote (07-06-11 02:03)
>
> Michael Meeks:
>
> "I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for
the OO.o project in the long run."
>>>
> You:
>
> I agree; you draw the same inference that I do: he means that a
>> non-c
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> To put an end to speculation on the "TDF is a bunch of extremists
> therefore Oracle did not choose them", here's TDF's official statement:
>
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-
to-oracle/
I already pulled from that site, and quo
38 matches
Mail list logo
