I saw no confusion in the article and I enjoyed it.... But it is odd that the page exists there of it is an unrelated opinion piece. That said, of it is indicating a reason the license fire AOO is desirable, that is different.
On Feb 19, 2015 10:10 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi. > > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. > > There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like > another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as > the page we produce are correct). > > There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily > be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. > > The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has > been added: > " > > *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or > advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of > licenses."* > Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion > of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer > and being on the bottom many do not even read it. > > We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we > have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to > the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about > a lot of mails). > > I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of > discussions, and would prefer to see it removed....however a statement on > top of the page saying something like: > "This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC" > would at least stop the negative discussions. > > > Thoughts? > > rgds > jan I. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
