Will Glass-Husain wrote:
Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from
POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI
participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had
been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently.
Okay. It jus
The alias is immaterial to me
-Andy
Roland Weber wrote:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
[...]
I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to
Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more.
That's a very unspecific name. "formats" can mean anything, from
f
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> [...]
> I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to
> Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more.
That's a very unspecific name. "formats" can mean anything, from
formatting a file system to data formats/representations like BER.
Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from
POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI
participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had
been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently.
I am wondering about this vote though.
Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another
vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC
members are around... Then 3 months later do it again.
-1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up
backstory for me)
Henri Yand
I feel a bit attacked for no reason really (regarding the barbs thrown
in my direction). It has been some time since I have not been rather
civil on this list and I would expect the return courtesy. I've always
tried to make a good faith effort with regards to POI. I have never
supported (an
On 12/15/06, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on
27-3-2006" and the outcome
was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
The reasoning behind this is that POI is still tryin
On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1.
You are of course misrepresenting the issue but okay. It is also
because of the legal issues. Go read the archive and provide a good
faith assertion rather than making an assumption. If YOU want to work
on POI please submit some pat
-1.
You are of course misrepresenting the issue but okay. It is also
because of the legal issues. Go read the archive and provide a good
faith assertion rather than making an assumption. If YOU want to work
on POI please submit some patches and following that should you wish to
be a commit
On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
>
> Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
> requireme
On 12/15/06, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hm,
does it pose a real legal threat or is it just a "felt threat" from
Andy?
As long as we're not soliciting trade secrets - tis good. I suspect
this is a case of Andy's lawyer back in the day either having a
different opinion or
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Henri Yandell wrote:
Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
requirement.
Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details?
My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many
moons ago, maybe b
If anyone comments or votes who is from the POI community, could you
please identify yourself?
We need to be sure there is representation in this vote.
I'm abstaining till I see more debate. I see the implication of
Martin's point -- POI is pretty insular in Jakarta. But where would
POI go if
Hm,
does it pose a real legal threat or is it just a "felt threat" from
Andy?
I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to
remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise,
this "access restriction" thing feels too much like a wart.
Push it to TLP,
On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
requirement.
Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the ori
ehh +1 :)
Mvgr,
Martin
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on
> 27-3-2006" and the outcome
> was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
>
> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still t
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
requirement.
Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details?
Nick
Which legal team ?
Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
Mvgr,
Martin
Nick Burch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what
>> it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely.
>
> I
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what
it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely.
I think it was actually a reccomendation from the legal team. We have
always asked that anyone contributing c
Hi everyone,
You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on
27-3-2006" and the outcome
was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it
Jakarta once was and it is
time they j
20 matches
Mail list logo
