are considered GPL-compatible by the FSF.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthieb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 17:05
To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Cc: libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to Ope
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I also notice that the Apache CLA is not a copyright assignment, it is
> simply a non-exclusive license with the usual attestation that I have the
> right to grant the license and it is my original work. (Patch contributions
> apparently
Hi Dennis,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> PS: It is personally appealing to me that the Apache project proposes to use
> the tools I already use for other projects (i.e., Subversion and JIRA). I
> don't have any plans to contribute anything, but it is heartening to k
esktop.org'
Subject: RE: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
I think this is about licenses.
Under the Apache 2.0 license, I expect we will see contributions from IBM and
others for whom reciprocal licenses are toxic.
I recently noticed that the ODF Toolkit Java
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> PS: I notice that the proposal to create an Apache Incubator omits the risk
> of their being a fork and divided developer community. There is this
> presumption: "Both Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org development
> community,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM, BRM wrote:
>
>
> Just saying, there's more than one way to skin the cat (as the old saying
> goes),
> and there are multiple reason for choosing difference licensing methods,
> many of which are very valid reasons - not all of which lead to GPL/LGPL.
>
To be clear
- Original Message
> From: Norbert Thiebaud
> To: BRM
> Cc: libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> Sent: Wed, June 1, 2011 4:07:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:37 PM, BRM wrote:
>
Hi Norbert,
On 01/06/2011 23:07, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
[...]
But that is _not_ the license, and with Apache License they would not
have to make it available at ALL to anybody... just as is the case
with their proprietary OO fork today.
Hence the Enthusiastic blog campaign that flourished from
ity.
-Original Message-
From: libreoffice-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm@lists.freedesktop.org
[mailto:libreoffice-bounces+dennis.hamilton=acm@lists.freedesktop.org] On
Behalf Of Tibby Lickle
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 11:03
To: libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Lib
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:37 PM, BRM wrote:
> Original Message
>
>> From: Norbert Thiebaud
>> Oracle announce:
>>
>>http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm
>>m
>>
>> IBM is very happy to be able to continue Symp
Hi Ben,
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:37 -0700, BRM wrote:
> FYI - LGPL/GPL does not _require_ that code be contributed back to the
> _community_. Projects work best when that happens, but that is not a
> requirement.
True - on the other hand, if millions of people have the right to get
the
Original Message
> From: Norbert Thiebaud
> Oracle announce:
>
>http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm
>m
>
> IBM is very happy to be able to continue Symphony without having to
> give code back... (they se
It's like throwing out the baby with the bath water - they're just
throwing away so much experience. I certainly wouldn't want to be
facing something the size of LO/OOo without a team who've had to deal
with it before :)
I'm fairly new to LibreOffice and contributing to FOSS but the
community have
Oracle announce:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm
IBM is very happy to be able to continue Symphony without having to
give code back... (they seems to rejoyce at being able to do selective
GPL: i.e what is yours is
14 matches
Mail list logo
