marcation of "new-project" and
"business-as-usual-project" it will be very hard to disentangle the two sets of
needs and fulfil the worthy objective at the start of the proposal, "Both
Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org developmen
On 3 Jun 2011, at 02:32, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The
> LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the
> LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contributions and insert
> th
That is what I was suggesting and which Rob claims he won't need because its
so easy.
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 3, 2011 3:23 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>> Final
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
>
>> I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
>> at Apache or any other entity.
>>
>
> Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
> other foundation. So we are where we
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
> all
> of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a c
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very
> similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these
> two thre
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Ahhh... Yes I see something missing from Simons mail here. I assumed that
> the LibreOffice distribution would gradually migrate to using the core
> components proposed here (Apache ODFSuite as Simin called it) and thus
> collaboration on th
ld be distributing code
> > under the mark.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message
> >> From: Jim Jagielski
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
> >> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman
> wrote:
> >
> >> Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
> >
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
> the podling.
>
> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>
They can only make those decisions if they know they have to make them. I
think it's very material to yo
Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for collaboration
to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim while
your project sorts itself out.
S.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
> wrote:
> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> >> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
> > related communit
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> >
> > If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am
> not),
> > I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of th
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> When I read Jim's email, I took it to mean your tweets[1]. Not your
> emails to this list.
Greg: I am being told by Sam Ruby to not talk about these topics so I will
not respond apart from to acknowledge I am not ignoring you.
S.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 02:33:21 PM:
>
> >
> > Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for
> collaboration
> > to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim
> while
>
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
>> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treati
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
> >> from ASF into their products.
> >>
> >
> > This is true, but would yo
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
> >> code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
> >
> > Tangential to the responses you've already rece
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
> a need
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>
> >>&
On 3 Jun 2011, at 21:14, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Posts such as:
>
>
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
>
> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
> as well as almost forcing the "other
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh wrote:
> >
> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
> > and proactive collaboration with other parties i
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Besides that, I
I suggest:
"The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationsh
Given the generally positive response I've edited that text into the wiki.
S.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > I suggest:
> >
> > "The LibreOffice p
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it?
>
>
Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone associated with this
proposal on the LibreOffice and Document Foundation lists I subscribe to. I
heard about it through perso
Sorry, hit send too soon.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Now... with that said. Consider a typical person from the ASF who
> might want to do that. Say.. like myself. I don't know what list to
> subscribe to. (name only one!) ... If somebody can say what list that
> ASF peo
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:23, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> >> (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it?
> >
> > Actually I have
t
>
>
> 7) Join Apache and consolidate all development there, under the name ODF
> Suite.
>
> a) Not willing to consider it
>
> b) Willing to consider it
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
I can confirm I just saw your "Hello" message go out - awesome!
S.
On 4 Jun 2011, at 01:21, Greg Stein wrote:
> I've now subscribed to libreoffice@, steering-discuss@, and discuss@.
> I dropped a "hello" email to the lists, and am going into lurk mode
> :-)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:45, Den
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote:
> However I
> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
> 2.0 is an appropriate choice:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
Have
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>> Excuse me for interrupting ...
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.
>>
>> I've been reading MPL a few times in this
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>>
> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
> statement above would need to be both qualifie
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote:
>>> However I
>>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
>>> advancing the
On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby&qu
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
I really can't see that as necessary Jim.
S.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
I'm aware that Sun successfully challenged a problematic third party
registration in Brazil just as the acquisition was going through. It may be
worth early investigation in case the registration on Sun's behalf was not
then completed; OOo had serious issues in Brazil over many years because of
it.
On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
>>> this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> No, we don't need the comprehensive list to start.
>
OK, that's good. It will be worth gathering a group of experts to build a
comprehensive view. I suggest that include LibreOffice developers too.
> After all that, then we can go back to O
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <
ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Concerning the extensions, by reading the file Sam Ruby uploaded, the
> following
> extensions are in the grant:
>
>
>
Thanks, I'd missed those. Reassuring :-)
>
> I don't see the MySQL C
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't
> IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in
> existence?
>
I am pretty s
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
> I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then try
> to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers have a vision
> for where they want to go, even though they may be starting from the same
> place.
>
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 6/5/11 7:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall> >wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then
>>> try
>&
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope
> Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable
> unless the pending application is turned down.
>
Actually that trademark application is of deep con
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote:
> > I would recommend altering the proposal. "We have the set of files
> > specified in the software grant. During incubation, we will seek a
> > grant to the following groups of code: "
>
>
> Done.
>
Beat me to it :-) We still need to get that list fles
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana
wrote:
>
> 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
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:37 AM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM:
>
> > From: Simon Phipps
> > I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been
> waiting
> > to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:08 AM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps 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 tha
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 09:13:24 PM:
>
> > >
> > > 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.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:24 AM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM:
>
> => >
> > I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue
> creating,
> > building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all
> the
&g
I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this
place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand
why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the
LibreOffice part of the OOo community right from the start.
S.
On Jun 6, 2
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote:
> >
> >>> I would recommend altering the proposal. "We have the set of files
> >>> specified
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Like most aspects of Apache, it's easier to ask for forgiveness
>
> than to seek permission, epecially when we don't all agree on
> the necessity of it ;-).
>
>
Given I had actually asked for and received permission from the proposal
mentor I
On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>
> Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
> contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
> things.
>
> Carrots and sticks.
Is Apache historically flexible in this area? I had the impression the
tradem
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>
> > Let's say we persuaded the good guys at Apache that this is a ploy to
> > manipulate them and they reject the code. Where then will it go? If
> > conspiracy is right it definitely won't be to TDF and it could be to
> > somewhere a lot mor
My apologies if this proposal is out of place on either list, but I think it's
worth thinking about early. Obviously I speak for neither Apache nor TDF but I
have a deep concern for OpenOffice.org and am very keen to see the community
healed.
Given that:
* both LibreOffice (October, Paris) an
On 6 Jun 2011, at 19:03, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> My apologies if this proposal is out of place on either list, but I think
>> it's worth thinking about early. Obviously I speak for neither Apache nor
>> TDF but
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far
> off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months,
> perhaps we could set something up sooner than that? OSCON, anyone?
>
> I've just asked for a room at
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
>
>> However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far
>> off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months,
>> per
I asked some LibreOffice folk what they thought was missing from the list.
In addition to the stuff Christian listed (and the fact the list was not
derived from the latest beta), they said that there are a large number of
un-integrated work-in-progress patches in the form of CWSs that it would be
i
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:04, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > It's just a meeting between colleagues. If all it does is
> > break a little of the entrenched ice I'd call it a success.
> >
> > Sure beats email for dealing with emotions/trust.
>
> Right
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
>
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/06/2011 03:18:11 PM:
>
> > From: Simon Phipps
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Date: 06/06/2011 03:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
> >
> > On M
I've created a wiki page for us to co-ordinate who can attend what where. Do
please edit at will, there are no rules and I am sure I made lots of
mistakes :-)
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/OOoCommunitySummit
S.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
>
> > Hi Jim, all,
> >
> > 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski :
> >>
> >> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>
> > Note that an expo-hall pass is free until (and including) today; it's
> > $25 thereafter.
> >
> > This also opens up the evening events Mon-Fri, which, if you're going
> > to f
users commited to use ODF
> just inside government is estimated in 3 million).
>
> Best,
>
> Jomar Silva
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands,
, Cor indicates that I nailed the matter quite squarely.
>
>--- Noel
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >> LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amoun
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 07.06.2011 12:37, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>
>> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that
>>> even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code
>>> from the svn reposit
I just heard back from the Open World Forum Programme Committee (Paris,
October) and they would be pleased to provide us with space for a meeting.
S.
; [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E
> [3]
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump
>
>
> On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simo
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, wrote:
>
> Of course, this is not necessarily a problem for Apache. Think of it this
> way. It would be perfectly possible, and actually quite easy for someone
> to host the files with a scalable cloud storage provider, e.g., Amazon,
> and charge $0.99 for the do
Good to know, many thanks.
S.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Andrew Rist wrote:
> We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo
> repositories.
>
> A.
>
>
>
> On 6/7/2011 10:14 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> That's very helpfu
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > unless either the Apache project or the LibreOffice project do extremely
> > substantial refactoring very fast, both projects will be using the same
> > code for a long time. If we all do
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Noel J. Bergman
> wrote:
> >
> >> Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>
> >> > unless either the Apache p
Are you logged in? Accounts are free (hey, they even let me have one)!
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 7, 2011 10:09 PM, "Jomar Silva (Cuca)" wrote:
> Simon,
>
> I've tried to edit the wiki but I don't have permisson... shame on me :)
>
> Best,
>
> Jomar
>
> --
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM, wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM:
>
> >
> > Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other
> owners
> > to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there
> holds
> > the copyright. We just have to deter
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Jomar Silva (Cuca) wrote:
> Yep... but even logged in I couldn't edit it... I'm from the third
> world, you know :)
>
>
Fascinating. Can you send me your login details privately and I'll see if
any of the folk I have on IM can help :-)
S.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 8 June 2011 22:50, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > Dave Fisher wrote:
> >
> > > Your donation will go directly towards helping this project. Some of
> the
> > ways
> > > in which your funds might be used include:
> > > • Hiring independen
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>
>> On 8 June 2011 22:50, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>
>>> Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yo
evelopers" part doesn't fit...
>>>
>>> btw, where do those funds go now?? I'm guessing some sort of
>> escrow account held by Oracle?
>>
>>
>> -----
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Andrew Rist wrote:
>
>> to a foundation independent of Oracle: Team OpenOffice.org e.V.
>> searching for a more complete answer
>>
>>
>>
> It would be interesting to find out if all funds received for OOo were
> accounted for since the fork. Th
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:48 AM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/08/2011 06:44:35 PM:
>
> > >
> >
> > I was actually thinking of Freies Office Deutschland e.V. primarily,
> > http://www.frodev.org/
> >
>
> Interesting. That happen
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Andrew Rist wrote:
>
>> to a foundation independent of Oracle: Team OpenOffice.org e.V.
>> searching for a more complete answer
>>
>>
>>
> It would be interesting to find out if all funds received for OOo were
> accounted for since the fork. Th
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:43 AM, wrote:
> Don Harbison
> Program Director, IBM ODF Initiative
> Tel. +1-978-399-7018
> Mobile: +1-978-761-0116
> Email: donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com
>
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/08/2011 07:51:20 PM:
>
> > From: Simon Phipps
> &
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
>
> > Andrew Rist wrote:
> >> to a foundation independent of Oracle: Team OpenOffice.org e.V.
> >> searching for a more complete answer
> >>
> >>
> >
> > It would be interesting to find out if a
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:07 AM, wrote:
>
> In the same regard, the Team OpenOffice.org e.V. to which IBM and other
> corporate sponsors provided annual financial support may now wish to
> consider consolidation with http://www.frodev.org/. If that seems
> inappropriate, perhaps both need to be re
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:21 PM, wrote:
>
> This is great information. But can I make a suggestion? I don't think
> this is a discussion that we can really make any progress with now, in
> reviewing an incubation proposal. I'm not even sure this is something
> that will be within the ambit of t
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Michael Meeks
> wrote:
> >
> >IMHO this is vastly preferable to some smoke and lawyer (IANAL)
> > filled room that issues edicts to remove features and veto patches
> > without a clear public rational on a
For us outsiders, can you explain who is allowed to vote and in what way,
please?
S.
,
> Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
> http://dataved.ru/
> +7 916 562 8095
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > For us outsiders, can you explain who is allowe
+1 (non-binding)
S.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> On 11 Jun 2011, at 11:23, Simos Xenitellis
> wrote:
>
> > The part about the ASF undertaking only a reference implementation for
> > the ODF format
> > was not discussed.
>
> Yes it wa
Presumably though the private list is an exception-handling venue and we
should just get started on ooo-...@incubator.apache.org for now? Or am I
missing key insights here?
S.
95 matches
Mail list logo
