Hi,
can we please just end this futile discussion?
I agree, that water flows one direction only. But there needs to be
water first to flow in any direction.
If there will be enough to establish a flow, can only be seen, once the
podling is in place. The risk estimation (will the podling run
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> The code bases are already divergent and it would be very difficult to
> reconcile them. To make Apache OOo "upstream" from LO would mean one
> of two things
OK, let's clarify for sensibility: Apache would be upstream (licensing
acting as a diode), but not THE upstream.
Ian Lynch wrote:
> It's no good saying "if this or if that" because we are
> where we are. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle :-).
Exactly.
> This is really the crux of all the discussions. Is it better to maximise
the
> development resource through cooperation or is it better to have two
>
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> > Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
> > de-facto 'upstream'.
You may not like that a diode only allows current to flow one way, but that is
its function.
The notion of upstream is simply a factual function that
On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
> under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
> done here, and for TDF to be a downstre
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 6/8/2011 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo&
>>> LibreOffice on a technological level and on a distribution level
>>> 2.
On 6/8/2011 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>>
>> 1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo&
>> LibreOffice on a technological level and on a distribution level
>> 2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony)
On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
My understanding is that the Apache OpenOffice codebase matters to IBM
and anyone who would want to use the specificities of the Apache
licensing, and I understand this as being a reality we can all agree
on. Instead of spending hours and keystrokes p
Hello Marvin,
Le Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:04:42 -0700,
Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:43:45AM +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [...] th
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:43:45AM +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >
> > [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
> > under the current licensing regime
On 8 June 2011 08:43, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman
> wrote:
> >
> > [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
> > under the current licensing regime is for all co
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
> under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
> done here, and for TDF to be a downstr
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
[...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.
Just because you choose a particular license that d
13 matches
Mail list logo
