On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote: > > > Hi Jim, all, > > > > 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>: > >> > >> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's > >>> recommendation, than taxes. > >>> > >> > >> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but > >> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle > >> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly > >> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in > >> a sense. Taxes were not an issue... > >> > > I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable": > > > http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/ > > > > TDF just refused to pay for anything which is under contract of Oracle. > > > > Thx for the link. It is good to see TDF opening up regarding > what their original request was to Oracle. Subsequent discussions, > of course, are not known but so what. They are moot. For whatever > reason, Oracle did not think that TDF was the right place. That > ship has sailed. Time to figure out what to do now. > I asked, and apparently there were no subsequent discussions. But I agree, this ship has sailed and I'd be pleased to see this all move into a podlet...
