On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: > On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: >>> As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed >>> opportunity to reunite. >> >> If we all agree on that point, can we please move on? >> > > Seems to me the main issue is the license. Permissive Apache or Copyleft. > Those who want to be associated with permissive licensed code will come to > Apache, those that want a copyleft license will go to TDF. Those that don't > care will contribute to both or work with the community they like the best > :-). Since it seems unlikely that those that feel strongly about it will be > moved, the crux is whether either, both or neither code base gets sufficient > support to sustain its maintenance and development. Only time will tell and > only time will tell to what extent the code will diverge if both projects > prove viable. So what further debate is to be had? Is it not just a matter > of seeing how many committers sign up to make Apache OOo viable? >
My impression is that TDF likes having the OOo codebase as AL2 since they can consume it directly. Of course, the reverse is not possible, but that is the advantage of an AL type license: after all, having the code under the AL helps the developer community as well as commercial entities. If the intent is having OOo as pervasive as possible, then it's obvious that AL wins big time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
