On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:08 AM, <robert_w...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM: > > > > > > > > The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know > a few > > > OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that > > > extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as > that'll > > > confuse end-users. > > > > > > > I still think that's open for discussion. To my eyes it still makes a > lot of > > sense to have Apache host the parts IBM (and maybe others, although > their > > existence is exaggerated) need for their proprietary products, and then > have > > TDF maintain a consumer end-user deliverable downstream as well. > > > > I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream deliverable. > It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It > would be great if a private company does this. It would be good of a > government wants to do this. It would be great if multiple parties wanted > to do this together. It would be great it multiple parties wanted to do > this separately. > > But I am very very very concerned that this conversation is starting to > cross over into a "division of market" conversation, which has stiff > penalties under US and international competition law. Open source work, > like standards, is work done voluntarily among competitors in the market. > There are some things we must not talk about, especially things where > competitors may be seen as arranging to reduce competition. We need to > steer the conversation far from this. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories > > We are discussing how the OpenOffice.org community (which as has been explained has two different open source projects in addition to a variety of downstream commercial consumers of the open source code) could structure its operations.
S.
