On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use > as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. > > > > As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too > aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer > to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it > hopefully clear what it is. > > At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now.
THANKS. > > But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we > are discussing in circles: > > - Who is it that do not like the content? among others jim who is v.p. legal and talk on behalf of the foundation in this case myself > - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? not a lot, but point is v.p. legal of apache feel we break rules, and that os more important than the numbers > - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? I think (renark the word) that it is because we compare licences. ASF At large do not do this kind of comparing, and definitively not at project level. rob@ I am +1 on calling a vote, but I eould realky prefer we could settle this without, a vote builds fronts and we need a lot more to work together. I have offered 2 solutions, including being very flexible in the wording of the disclaimer, I will leave it up to you to either call a vote or work with us all to find a solution. Please suggest a compromise, that satisfies people like jim (in short keep ASF happy) and is something you can accept. i am easy, if ASF is happy I am happy. tgds jan i > Thanks > > Marcus > > > > Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: > >> 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? >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
