If I understand correctly:
What is developed by the Apache license can be used at LibreOffice but
what is done by LibreOffice
can not be used by OpenOffice as OpenOffice would move to offer the
principles of under the GPL.
I'm not sure this is entirely correct. TDF allowed itself some license
Hello All,
I'm going to try to address as many of the concerns raised as I can in one
email.
I'm not suggesting that anyone go work for IBM. In fact, I'm suggesting
just the opposite; I'm suggesting that we all work together to get IBM
working for us.
Here's the deal. IBM is the main
Hello Kohei,
Thank you for your reply. I can certainly understand your sentiment, and I
completely respect it.
Just to clarify one thing:
Suggesting that we somehow owe anything to them just because of the past
is,
to put it mildly insane, and in some way insulting.
I certainly never made
Greetings All,
Some of you will remember me as a long time member of the OpenOffice.org
community. In fact, back in the day, it was sometimes just myself and
Michael Meeks who were openly complaining on the OOo mailing list about
Sun's handling of the community :-)
I'm writing today about what
See the thread titled OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal post on
June 1 by Luke Kowalski of Oracle
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/threa
d
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
On Windows it wants to package jre which is not there. So:
$ touch ../../solver/300/wntmsci12.pro/bin/jre-6u22-windows-i586.exe
$ dmake openofficedev
OK, so there's a bug. It should only attempt to include the JRE when
you build openofficewithjre target - so apparently the Product name
I'm introducing a setting that decides if disabled menu items should be
hidden. Currently the code is broken
in the sense that items are hidden if disabled on all platforms and
UpdateApplicationSettings which theortically
does that is a) counter-intuitive and b) not set by platforms.
I'm
No objections from my part to fully hide, removed /
not-allowed-by-sysadmin ones, but when it comes to hiding entries that
cannot be performed at the moment for whatever reason, then I say no,
thanks.
That is the way it currently works under Windows. The former uses a
permanent switch, while
I would +100 this suggestion. AFAIK, under Windows, there is no easy way to
do a side-by-side installation, and certainly no way within the reach of a
typical user. Without the ability to do a side-by-side, many users are not
going to test the Beta builds, and the quality of the release will
