On 1 October 2011 00:12, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Bauer >wrote:
>
> > Am 30.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Alexandro Colorado:
> >
> > > I dunno why this is such an issue really, we are both open source
> > projects.
> > > Cooperating and working together does
>
> > I'd say stop posting reactionary and emotive stuff when someone makes a
> > positive suggestion to get people working together.
>
> You've hit the nail on the head!
>
> Since the split of the OOo community we had the strange situation that
> many people on both sides declared an interest to g
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 8:24 PM, "Mathias Bauer" wrote:
...
> Looking for parts in each others posts that could be *interpreted*
> negatively got more interest than praising the positive statements in
> them. I have a very philantropic attit
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> Am 30.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Alexandro Colorado:
>
> > I dunno why this is such an issue really, we are both open source
> projects.
> > Cooperating and working together doesnt really needs much, just commit to
> > both projects and move on.
Am 30.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Alexandro Colorado:
> I dunno why this is such an issue really, we are both open source projects.
> Cooperating and working together doesnt really needs much, just commit to
> both projects and move on. I mean, what are we looking for here, do you want
> an explicit th
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 29.09.2011 09:56, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > On 28 September 2011 16:51, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> If everyone agreed that having a single project was best today, then
> >> we would have a single project tomorrow.
> >
> > Point is we have made
On 29.09.2011 09:56, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 28 September 2011 16:51, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> If everyone agreed that having a single project was best today, then
>> we would have a single project tomorrow.
>
> Point is we have made little real effort to achieve any consensus on this.
> We have done a
On 28 September 2011 16:51, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> >> If TDF wants to take the AOOo source code and build it, with or
> >> without enhancements, and release it under the name "LibreOffice" for
> >> use with Linux distros, then they are welcome to d
Am 09/28/2011 10:50 AM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
i am not really new here and be one of the initial committers but i would
take the opportunity to let you know that i got the chance to work fulltime
on the project in the future as an IBM employee.
Congratulations for the new job at IBM and for t
Hi;
First of all, I am very glad seeing all this OOo developers
hired at IBM .. it's great news!!
FWIW, I've seen codebases fork under the same license and
never reunite (FreeBSD, NetBSD, and more forks coming out
of each afterwards) so while I don't say merging back LO
into OOo is impossible, it
>>I come back to the point that if division is intrinsically good, why not
>>fork Inkscape, Audacity, Gimp, etc etc.
GIMP has been forked for quite some time... Read up on the history of
CinePaint (formerly known as "Film GIMP") and its disagreements with
GIMP. Here the reasons for the fork were m
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>> If TDF wants to take the AOOo source code and build it, with or
>> without enhancements, and release it under the name "LibreOffice" for
>> use with Linux distros, then they are welcome to do that. They need
>> no additional permissions from A
Jürgen,
Herzlichen Glückwunsch!
Regards,
Dave
On Sep 28, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i am not really new here and be one of the initial committers but i would
> take the opportunity to let you know that i got the chance to work fulltime
> on the project in the future as a
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 28 September 2011 13:31, drew wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:05 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > or why not just shake hands and part as friends.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and
> If TDF wants to take the AOOo source code and build it, with or
> without enhancements, and release it under the name "LibreOffice" for
> use with Linux distros, then they are welcome to do that. They need
> no additional permissions from Apache or this project.
But that isn't really the point
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 28 September 2011 13:45, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Thorsten Behrens
>> wrote:
>> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> >> > > It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well
>> >> > > known brand OpenOffic
On 28 September 2011 13:45, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Thorsten Behrens
> wrote:
> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> > > It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well
> >> > > known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best
> >> > > choic
On 28 Sep 2011, at 13:45, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>
> If you have a specific proposal for use of Apache-owned trademarks,
> then you are welcome to submit it to this list. We can then review,
> discuss and make a recommendation to Apache branding.
I believe it was Juergen who was proposing this, no
On 28 September 2011 13:31, drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:05 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
> > >
> > > or why not just shake hands and part as friends.
> > >
> >
> > Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and is
> less
> > good for Open Source in general.
>
> Well, as
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Thorsten Behrens
wrote:
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> > > It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well
>> > > known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best
>> > > choice for our users.
>> > >
>> > Please correct me if I'm wron
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well
> > > known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best
> > > choice for our users.
> > >
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that
> > name can only be made by
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:05 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
> >
> > or why not just shake hands and part as friends.
> >
>
> Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and is less
> good for Open Source in general.
Well, as you can guess I disagree - it's only inefficient if one
dog
>
> or why not just shake hands and part as friends.
>
Of course we can but that makes inefficient use of the resources and is less
good for Open Source in general. Fine strategy if we had thousands of
developers in each project and a MS size budget.
>
> Two projects and two applications.
>
> -
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Thorsten Behrens <
t...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> first off, glad to hear you stay with our code & the ecosystem! :)
>
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer
> > valid and it should be possib
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:28 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 28 September 2011 11:53, Thorsten Behrens
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jürgen,
> >
> > first off, glad to hear you stay with our code & the ecosystem! :)
> >
> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer
On 28 September 2011 11:53, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> first off, glad to hear you stay with our code & the ecosystem! :)
>
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer
> > valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one
> > o
Hi Jürgen,
first off, glad to hear you stay with our code & the ecosystem! :)
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer
> valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one
> office together.
>
I don't believe it's helpful to start a discussio
2011/9/28 Jürgen Schmidt
> Hi,
>
> i am not really new here and be one of the initial committers but i would
> take the opportunity to let you know that i got the chance to work fulltime
> on the project in the future as an IBM employee.
>
Hi Jurgen, great to see you coming back into the project
Hi,
i am not really new here and be one of the initial committers but i would
take the opportunity to let you know that i got the chance to work fulltime
on the project in the future as an IBM employee.
After 14 years with Sun and Oracle and working on the OOo project since the
beginning i was af
29 matches
Mail list logo
