Am 11/01/2012 10:07 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
Can standard loosely be defined as an extension:
- is developed by people who have signed ICLA
- uses the apache license header in the source files
It's indeed important but IMHO this shouldn't be part of the decision to
draw the standard as it's
+1 to your ideas, much better formulated than mine.
see below for comments.
Jan
On 2 November 2012 12:09, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 11/01/2012 10:07 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
Can standard loosely be defined as an extension:
- is developed by people who have signed ICLA
-
On 02.11.2012 12:09, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 11/01/2012 10:07 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
Can standard loosely be defined as an extension:
- is developed by people who have signed ICLA
- uses the apache license header in the source files
It's indeed important but IMHO this shouldn't be part of
Am 11/02/2012 01:00 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
+1 to your ideas, much better formulated than mine.
see below for comments.
Jan
On 2 November 2012 12:09, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 11/01/2012 10:07 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
Can standard loosely be defined as an extension:
-
Am 11/02/2012 02:02 PM, schrieb Andre Fischer:
On 02.11.2012 12:09, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 11/01/2012 10:07 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
Can standard loosely be defined as an extension:
- is developed by people who have signed ICLA
- uses the apache license header in the source files
It's indeed
On 11/1/12 12:39 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 10/27/2012 01:17 AM, schrieb jan iversen:
I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long time ago I
believed open source was just open source, then I joined an apache
project).
never mind.
Would it be to our advantage if we offered
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/1/12 12:39 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 10/27/2012 01:17 AM, schrieb jan iversen:
I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long time ago I
believed open source was just open source, then I joined an
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/1/12 12:39 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 10/27/2012 01:17 AM, schrieb jan iversen:
I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long
Am 11/01/2012 01:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/1/12 12:39 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 10/27/2012 01:17 AM, schrieb jan iversen:
I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long time ago I
believed open source
Can standard loosely be defined as an extension:
- is developed by people who have signed ICLA
- uses the apache license header in the source files
- is of interest to the general public in different countries
- is willing to let the source be controlled/reviewed by committer.
- accept a vote by
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:07 PM, jan iversen jancasacon...@gmail.com wrote:
Can standard loosely be defined as an extension:
- is developed by people who have signed ICLA
- uses the apache license header in the source files
- is of interest to the general public in different countries
- is
see below please.
On 1 November 2012 22:21, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:07 PM, jan iversen jancasacon...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can standard loosely be defined as an extension:
- is developed by people who have signed ICLA
- uses the apache license header in
Am 10/27/2012 01:17 AM, schrieb jan iversen:
I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long time ago I
believed open source was just open source, then I joined an apache project).
never mind.
Would it be to our advantage if we offered third party developers (that is
how I see
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:27:34AM +0200, jan iversen wrote:
I agree with you, we should NOT put a new framework on extensions writer.
I was thinking along the lines of
make a new directory ./extras/extensions/source, with files extension
name.known extension
This will force the extension
Got it, as Marcus explained, this is not a path to follow, but now I can
write in my document that is has been discussed.
jan
On 27 October 2012 14:47, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:27:34AM +0200, jan iversen wrote:
I agree with you, we should
While doing an update to the l10n workflow I think I found a slight problem.
Extensions offers the capability to integrate/extend our UI.
Assuming somebody writes an extension, and publishes it on
http://www.openoffice.org/extensions/ how does that get integrated into the
translation process ?
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:36:38AM +0200, jan iversen wrote:
While doing an update to the l10n workflow I think I found a slight problem.
Extensions offers the capability to integrate/extend our UI.
Assuming somebody writes an extension, and publishes it on
Am 10/27/2012 12:36 AM, schrieb jan iversen:
While doing an update to the l10n workflow I think I found a slight problem.
Extensions offers the capability to integrate/extend our UI.
Assuming somebody writes an extension, and publishes it on
http://www.openoffice.org/extensions/ how does that
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 01:17:33AM +0200, jan iversen wrote:
I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long time ago I
believed open source was just open source, then I joined an apache project).
It has nothing to do with licensing. Even if the extension code and all
its dependencies
19 matches
Mail list logo
