----- Original Message ---- > From: Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> > On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:17 PM, David Nelson wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 22:18, BRM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was making the observation that TDF's website & materials make little >mention > >> of the fact that FroDeV is involved. > >> Therefore, to help reduce the comments by those that _do_ make that claim >it > >> would be beneficial for TDF to update its website to make reference to the > >> existing legal status in the normal fashion of listing FroDeV and TDFs >relation > >> with it in the little section where the copyright/trademarks/etc are all > >> mentioned on every page on the TDF website. > > > > It's my feeling that people who have been following and contributing > > to the project are pretty well aware of which organization is handling > > the founding. > > > > Not to beat a dead horse, but I think BRM's point wasn't > directed towards those who know, but rather instead the > large percentage of people out there who don't. There was, > and still is, the perception that TDF is an official, fully- > setup, self-controlled and self-existing foundation (similar > to what the ASF is). That perception was "beneficial" during > all the discussion and debate since it implied that, as > far as legal-status was concerned, TDF == The ASF and so > the discussion was able to be distilled down to copyleft > vs non-copyleft FOSS (as far as which foundation was "better" > for OOo)... > > I am sure that someone on this list will see the above as > some sort of slam against TDF, but it's simply my interpretation > of what BRM was trying to say. >
+1 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
