On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws <oo...@nouenoff.nl> wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35) >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz<a.kucka...@ping.de> >> wrote: > >>> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ? >> >> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is >> not an appropriate choice in this situation? > > Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license > policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project. > So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with > the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.
This question can be looked at from multiple perspectives. I will start by acknowledging your perspective as a valid perspective. I will close by asking that you acknowledge mine in a likewise manner. In order to cast the widest possible net, it is important to pick a license that seeks to permit the widespread use of the code, being inclusive of both Free and proprietary software products alike. I fully understand that that is just one possible criteria for a license choice. While other choices may make sense depending on the specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation. Before proceeding, can I get you to acknowledge that as a valid perspective? > Cor > > -- > - http://nl.libreoffice.org > - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
