Hi Sam,
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 16:00)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, 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
n
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
>> Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
>>>
>>> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws wrote:
>>>
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>
> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache L
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
>>
>> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws wrote:
>>
>>> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
not an appropriate choice in this situation
On 4 June 2011 16:54, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> >
> > Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is
> > not a value judgement.
> >
> > Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way
> > round
> >
> >
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> Fact: Oracle donated the code to ASF, not to TDF. It's just the way it is
> not a value judgement.
>
> Fact: Copyleft license can be derived from Apache but not the other way
> round
>
> Fact: TDF have some very able people some of whom will no
On 4 June 2011 15:46, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz
> wrote:
> > Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
> >> While other choices may make sense depending on the
> >> specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
> >> that does not cast t
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
>> 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.
>
> I do no
"Andreas Kuckartz" wrote on 06/04/2011 06:24:07 AM:
>
> I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this
> as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense.
>
> Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org /
> LibreOffice code legally usable wi
dsh wrote on 06/04/2011 07:53:54 AM:
> Andreas,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
wrote:
> > I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but
makes
> > binaries available for free:
> > http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
> >
>
> Although you can do
Am 04.06.2011 16:00, schrieb Sam Ruby:
> 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.
I do not know if that is a "valid perspective" or not, but I think that
t
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM, wrote:
> I'd be satisfied to merely not have the project's potential existence
> portrayed as a disease that must be eradicated from the face of the earth.
This type of rhetorical flourish does not lead to mutual cooperation.
Take it elsewhere.
- Sam Ruby
--
On 06/04/2011 09:40 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die.
Which is a possible consequence of any software...
How many times can we go around in circles? I agree with Ian. Accept
that there are two communities and move on either togethe
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz
>> 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 a
Another possible consequence of that option would be that both die.
Cheers,
Andreas
---
Am 04.06.2011 15:10, schrieb Ian Lynch:
> 1. TDF and LO goes its own way completely separate from Apache/OOo.
>
> ...
>
> Possible consequences of Option 1. ApacheOOo gets insufficient
support and
> stagnates
Ian Lynch wrote on 06/04/2011 09:10:05 AM:
>
>
> So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code
they
> own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of
view
> but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an
> Apache license
On 4 June 2011 13:47, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
>
>> On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws wrote:
>>
>> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>>
Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
not an appropriate choice in this situation?
Ian Lynch wrote (04-06-11 14:39)
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
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 licen
On 4 June 2011 13:30, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz
>> 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 ap
Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz 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 o
The reason for my questions is that I hope that answers might in some
way potentially help to avoid separate code bases for OpenOffice.org /
LibreOffice or at least make it possible to avoid that for parts of the
code.
Some kind of reasonable relation between Lotus Symphony and
Openoffice.org / Li
Andreas,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but makes
> binaries available for free:
> http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
>
Although you can download IBM Lotus Symphony for free it is still
licensed as
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>
> So my question to IBM is:
> Are you willing to consider open-sourcing IBM Lotus Symphony (even if
> only parts of it) ?
While I work for IBM, I don't work for that part of IBM. That being
said, I do believe that we already have an answe
I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this
as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense.
Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org /
LibreOffice code legally usable within IBM Lotus Symphony is to use a
non-copyleft license such as AS
23 matches
Mail list logo
