commitment to operation in the public interest.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:23
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Spam (11.08):Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to
cause
Am 02/19/2015 08:38 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Marcus wrote:
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as
every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
aggressive
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Marcus wrote:
> I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as
> every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
>
>
>
> As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
> aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unc
Am 02/19/2015 08:29 PM, schrieb jan i:
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus wrote:
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
aggressive or j
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:29 PM, jan i wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus wrote:
>
>> I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
>> as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>> As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the conte
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus wrote:
> I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
> as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
>
>
>
> As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
> aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unc
I think we need to rewrite or remove the page.
We can talk about the permissive AL.
We can suggest that people do their own research and/or seek their own counsel.
We could even offer a google link.
If we have a vote then here is my +1 to make a change as we should not be
offering this type of
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.
As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the
disclaimer to the top, made it red
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i wrote:
> On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i wrote:
>> > On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps
>> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015
39
To: dev
Subject: Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause
unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
> agreeable content on it.
That sounds smart to me, +1.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i wrote:
> On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i wrote:
>> > On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps
>> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015
On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i wrote:
> > On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps
> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i wrote:
> On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a mo
On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado
> wrote:
> >
> >> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
> >> agreeable content on it.
> >
> >
> > That sounds
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>
>> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
>> agreeable content on it.
>
>
> That sounds smart to me, +1.
>
> I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i wrote:
>> > On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote:
>> >> > Hi.
>> >> >
>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
> agreeable content on it.
That sounds smart to me, +1.
I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] "misrepresentation" -
maybe he has comments on what the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i wrote:
> > On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote:
> >> > Hi.
> >> >
> >> > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i wrote:
> On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote:
>> > Hi.
>> >
>> > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
>> > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.
>
On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
> > seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.
> >
> > There are of course people who do not like the pa
I saw no confusion in the article and I enjoyed it But it is odd that the
page exists there of it is an unrelated opinion piece. That said, of it is
indicating a reason the license fire AOO is desirable, that is different.
On Feb 19, 2015 10:10 AM, jan i wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> We have a page h
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
> seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.
>
> There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like
> another license to have the headl
Hi.
We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.
There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like
another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as
the page we produce
23 matches
Mail list logo
