Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
Next » 1 ... 45678 « Prev
toki toki
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Henri wrote:

> The circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to take(as seems to me to be the case) be to accept the grant (in the event Oracle is offering it *nulla condicione astrictus*)

Assuming that Oracle is offering the code, trademarks, etc to The Apache
Software Foundation under the usual Apache Software grant
(http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt), I'm not convinced
that The Apache Software Foundation could make that donation.  Whilst
"Distribute and sublicense" is legally acceptable, a flat out donation
is skating on thin ice. (The exception would be if The Apache Software
Foundation was being dissolved, and in that specific situation, the code
would have to be donated under the Apache License to an organization
that had 501(c)(3) status. Equivalent status in a jurisdiction outside
of the United States does not count.)

Furthermore, whilst it is fine to ask for the donation, lawyers from
both The Apache Software Foundation and The Document Foundation would
have to verify that the donation was legal in both jurisdictions.
(United States, and Germany.) (Going by memory, the paperwork to solicit
donations in DE is only 20 pages long, and about 30 days to complete.)

Jim wrote:

> then I would > expect that they/we would spent quite a bit of time
determining the "best" place for it..

That place being somewhere that The Apache Software Foundation can place
the code, and be in compliance with US Law, Delaware Law, The Apache
Software Foundation by-laws, the laws of the state that the recipient
organization is in, and the by-laws of the organization in which it is
placed.

Somewhere that the Apache Software Foundation legal team can ensure that
is kosher for _both_ parties.

TANSTAAFL wrote:

> Where *else* would even be a *remotely* viable candidate?

There might be no viable candidates.

Just because _The Document Foundation_ has filled out most of the
paperwork for Germany, does not mean that it can be the recipient of any
donations from the United States.  For starters, has The Document
Foundation filled out any of the legally required paperwork to solicit
donations in any state of the United States?  (Fortunately, the same
form can be used in most of the states. However, it still has to be
customized for each state.)

I'd suggest that the reason Oracle apparently ignored the letter sent by
The Document Foundation to them, was to avoid any potential penalties
imposed by the State of California. Whilst the penalty is chump change,
it is cheaper to avoid the potential situation of having to pay that
penalty in the first place. Especially when you are giving something away.

jonathon
- --
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.

If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
requesting.

                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN79oYAAoJEERA7YuLpVrVKw4H/iWX9UgdTGfzNYrJH6AeP9NJ
/bmbgXXaakIGStWkWsWH4qJEVpQVm4EzjNRjeI5wm5JA/qZIkT60GNK8LkF8oZLV
wWt7QPh0YDp3EFQKW34+FlxIL5AkjZaDRJDMtZ9LO3UHoiXoCpdaZWAAusz1zhlP
dZUjszM9gM3+8XaOAwNMTrutQBRXHCUqeGokzb6h0MIQ6ubXj3j/Y1680eJ4XAKK
q9gA+y7UzV3ZYF1hFCEk5iBiJJ2zoKaJsylVINTIZ/rAUwYl8OCW2j3IJwufa4Qf
WzFqS+i6DrDS6TB9INTtuDewVVms09zS91Cj9TI1au5nbUF8Hnnw8E+lzjDn65A=
=MjIw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

mhenriday mhenriday
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

2011/6/8 toki <[hidden email]>

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Henri wrote:
>
> > The circumstances being what they are, would not the best path for ASF to
> take(as seems to me to be the case) be to accept the grant (in the event
> Oracle is offering it *nulla condicione astrictus*)
>
> Assuming that Oracle is offering the code, trademarks, etc to The Apache
> Software Foundation under the usual Apache Software grant
> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt), I'm not convinced
> that The Apache Software Foundation could make that donation.  Whilst
> "Distribute and sublicense" is legally acceptable, a flat out donation
> is skating on thin ice. (The exception would be if The Apache Software
> Foundation was being dissolved, and in that specific situation, the code
> would have to be donated under the Apache License to an organization
> that had 501(c)(3) status. Equivalent status in a jurisdiction outside
> of the United States does not count.)
>
> Furthermore, whilst it is fine to ask for the donation, lawyers from
> both The Apache Software Foundation and The Document Foundation would
> have to verify that the donation was legal in both jurisdictions.
> (United States, and Germany.) (Going by memory, the paperwork to solicit
> donations in DE is only 20 pages long, and about 30 days to complete.)
>
> Jim wrote:
>
> > then I would > expect that they/we would spent quite a bit of time
> determining the "best" place for it..
>
> That place being somewhere that The Apache Software Foundation can place
> the code, and be in compliance with US Law, Delaware Law, The Apache
> Software Foundation by-laws, the laws of the state that the recipient
> organization is in, and the by-laws of the organization in which it is
> placed.
>
> Somewhere that the Apache Software Foundation legal team can ensure that
> is kosher for _both_ parties.
>
> TANSTAAFL wrote:
>
> > Where *else* would even be a *remotely* viable candidate?
>
> There might be no viable candidates.
>
> Just because _The Document Foundation_ has filled out most of the
> paperwork for Germany, does not mean that it can be the recipient of any
> donations from the United States.  For starters, has The Document
> Foundation filled out any of the legally required paperwork to solicit
> donations in any state of the United States?  (Fortunately, the same
> form can be used in most of the states. However, it still has to be
> customized for each state.)
>
> I'd suggest that the reason Oracle apparently ignored the letter sent by
> The Document Foundation to them, was to avoid any potential penalties
> imposed by the State of California. Whilst the penalty is chump change,
> it is cheaper to avoid the potential situation of having to pay that
> penalty in the first place. Especially when you are giving something away.
>
> jonathon
> - --
> If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.
>
> If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
> requesting.
>
>                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN79oYAAoJEERA7YuLpVrVKw4H/iWX9UgdTGfzNYrJH6AeP9NJ
> /bmbgXXaakIGStWkWsWH4qJEVpQVm4EzjNRjeI5wm5JA/qZIkT60GNK8LkF8oZLV
> wWt7QPh0YDp3EFQKW34+FlxIL5AkjZaDRJDMtZ9LO3UHoiXoCpdaZWAAusz1zhlP
> dZUjszM9gM3+8XaOAwNMTrutQBRXHCUqeGokzb6h0MIQ6ubXj3j/Y1680eJ4XAKK
> q9gA+y7UzV3ZYF1hFCEk5iBiJJ2zoKaJsylVINTIZ/rAUwYl8OCW2j3IJwufa4Qf
> WzFqS+i6DrDS6TB9INTtuDewVVms09zS91Cj9TI1au5nbUF8Hnnw8E+lzjDn65A=
> =MjIw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Thanks, Toki - problems of the type you describe are the reason I added the
stipulation «nulla condicione astrictus». But you are no doubt entirely
correct - one can't just give things away ; instead the recipient has to
demonstrate that they fulfil certain specifications. Otherwise, the lawyers
and legislators - all too often in the same person - would feel themselves
left out. As I see it, the upshot of the matter is that TDF would best be
advised to devote its limited resources to improving LibreOffice, rather
than to working to please the lawyerly mind....

Henri

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:36 PM, M Henri Day wrote:

> left out. As I see it, the upshot of the matter is that TDF would best be
> advised to devote its limited resources to improving LibreOffice, rather
> than to working to please the lawyerly mind....
>

I would suggest, as an outsider, that TDF continue the lawyerly
efforts in finalizing its foundation, non-profit, governance,
models. There is nothing worse, or more dangerous, than an
"almost created" foundation. ;)


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

RichardH RichardH
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Tanstaafl
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Tanstaafl <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2011-06-08 2:04 PM, BRM wrote:
> > Like all the venom towards Oracle, OOo, and ASF that has been spewed
> > by TDF members and contributors on this topic over the last few days?
>
> Very little of the negative reaction has been directed at the ASF,
> mostly it is directed at Oracle...
>
> Personally, I think it is silly - LibO obviously has moved way past
> where OOo was, so it is imho a non issue...
>
> Rest in peace, OOo... long live LibO!
>
>
I sincerely wish that this were the prevailing opinion.

With the time that has passed since the realization of the fork,
with the time it will take before an OOo-ASF product becomes a
reality, OpenOffice.org is in serious trouble. The last release was based
on momentum from the time of the fork.

I concur; let's take care of improving and fixing the present bugs in
 LibreOffice-3.4 and stop worrying over things that we are unable to
change.

All of this energy in this list would be better spent on LibreOffice.

saludos,
Richard.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Brouwer Simon Brouwer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simos Xenitellis
Op 6-6-2011 10:38, Simos Xenitellis schreef:

>
> Let's read the document you cite,
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
>
> A permissive license is recommended/suggested in two cases, when
> a. «very small projects»
> b. «projects that implement free standards that are competing against
> proprietary standards,
> such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which
> competes against MPEG-4 video)»
>
> I cannot fit OpenOffice in any of these criteria.
Doesn't OpenOffice.org implement the free standard ODF, which is
competing against the MS Office "standard" file formats?

--
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer.

| http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org |


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Simon Brouwer Simon Brouwer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by toki
Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
> TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is
> incorporated in Germany, not the United States.
That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established
foundation (yet)?

--

Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer.

| http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org |


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote:

> Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
>> TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is
>> incorporated in Germany, not the United States.
> That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)?

I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs
there... being independent is quite important to a number
of FOSS ecosystem people...
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
>
>> Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>>> A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
>>> TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is
>>> incorporated in Germany, not the United States.
>> That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)?
>
> I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs
> there... being independent is quite important to a number
> of FOSS ecosystem people...

While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying that you don't think TDF is "independent".  Please can you explain what you mean?

Thanks.

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

>
> On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
>>
>>> Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
>>>> TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is
>>>> incorporated in Germany, not the United States.
>>> That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)?
>>
>> I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs
>> there... being independent is quite important to a number
>> of FOSS ecosystem people...
>
> While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying that you don't think TDF is "independent".  Please can you explain what you mean?

People may just be curious about TDF being "backed" by“Freies Office Deutschland
e.V.” as well as an associated project in Software in the Public Interest (SPI).
What does being "backed" by them mean? How independent is it from these
2 entitied? Just questions like that.

Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
'independent' part is important.

Cheers!


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:12, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> On 8 Jun 2011, at 23:49, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Op 6-6-2011 11:37, toki schreef:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/06/2011 15:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A formal, legal foundation. The ASF is a recognized 501(c)3, non-
>>>>> TDF might not have 501(c)(3) status, but then consider that it is
>>>>> incorporated in Germany, not the United States.
>>>> That 501(c)(3) status aside, is TDF actually a legally established foundation (yet)?
>>>
>>> I also think that 'independent' is also an adjective that belongs
>>> there... being independent is quite important to a number
>>> of FOSS ecosystem people...
>>
>> While that is clearly a true statement, you seem to be implying that you don't think TDF is "independent".  Please can you explain what you mean?
>
> People may just be curious about TDF being "backed" by“Freies Office Deutschland
> e.V.” as well as an associated project in Software in the Public Interest (SPI).
> What does being "backed" by them mean? How independent is it from these
> 2 entitied? Just questions like that.

As I understand it FrODeV is hosting the incorporation launch of TDF, and SPI is providing stewardship of funds outside Germany. SPI is a very well-known, respected and trusted non-profit originally set up to host Debian's assets and who never interfere in the affairs of the organisations to which they provide this stewardship service.  Right now TDF appears to be essentially a project of FrODeV, itself an independent non-profit, and thus there's no hint of any dependency on a for-profit entity.

>
> Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
> critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
> established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
> 'independent' part is important.

Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since "every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it"[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop.

S.


[1] http://webmink.com/essays/sentinels/
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
>> critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
>> established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
>> 'independent' part is important.
>
> Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since "every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it"[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop.

Agreed... the only reason I mention "independent" is that even
a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded
to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure
that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless
claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip
that in the bud.

Cheers!


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
>>> critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
>>> established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
>>> 'independent' part is important.
>>
>> Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since "every system of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately subverts it"[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop.
>
> Agreed... the only reason I mention "independent" is that even
> a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded
> to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure
> that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless
> claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip
> that in the bud.

I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen. The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule-based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so.

S.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

donald_harbison donald_harbison
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Don Harbison
Program Director, IBM ODF Initiative
Tel. +1-978-399-7018
Mobile: +1-978-761-0116
Email: [hidden email]

Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote on 06/08/2011 07:55:02 PM:

> From: Simon Phipps <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: 06/08/2011 07:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join
ApacheOpenOffice

>
>
> On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
> >>> critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
> >>> established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
> >>> 'independent' part is important.
> >>
> >> Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to
> scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party -
> transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation
> can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since "every system
> of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately
> subverts it"[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to
> complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop.
> >
> > Agreed... the only reason I mention "independent" is that even
> > a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded
> > to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure
> > that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless
> > claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip
> > that in the bud.
>
> I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any
> corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen.
> The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule-
> based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they
> are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so.

Is there something useful to be said here? If so, what is it?
Non-sequitur?
> S.
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 9 Jun 2011, at 01:47, [hidden email] wrote:

> Don Harbison
> Program Director, IBM ODF Initiative
> Tel. +1-978-399-7018
> Mobile: +1-978-761-0116
> Email: [hidden email]
>
> Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote on 06/08/2011 07:55:02 PM:
>
>> From: Simon Phipps <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Date: 06/08/2011 07:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join
> ApacheOpenOffice
>>
>>
>> On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
>>>>> critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
>>>>> established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
>>>>> 'independent' part is important.
>>>>
>>>> Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to
>> scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party -
>> transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation
>> can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since "every system
>> of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately
>> subverts it"[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to
>> complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop.
>>>
>>> Agreed... the only reason I mention "independent" is that even
>>> a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded
>>> to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure
>>> that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless
>>> claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip
>>> that in the bud.
>>
>> I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any
>> corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen.
>> The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule-
>> based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they
>> are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so.
>
> Is there something useful to be said here? If so, what is it?
> Non-sequitur?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, honestly (and welcome to the list by the way, perhaps you should introduce yourself).  

But you really need to get that mailer of yours sorted out, it keeps top-posting a huge signature block each time you reply.

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

donald_harbison donald_harbison
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote on 06/08/2011 08:56:17 PM:

> From: Simon Phipps <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: 06/08/2011 09:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join
ApacheOpenOffice

>
>
> On 9 Jun 2011, at 01:47, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > Don Harbison
> > Program Director, IBM ODF Initiative
> > Tel. +1-978-399-7018
> > Mobile: +1-978-761-0116
> > Email: [hidden email]
> >
> > Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote on 06/08/2011 07:55:02 PM:
> >
> >> From: Simon Phipps <[hidden email]>
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Date: 06/08/2011 07:55 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join
> > ApacheOpenOffice
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
> >>>>> critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
> >>>>> established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
> >>>>> 'independent' part is important.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to
> >> scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party -
> >> transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation
> >> can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since "every system
> >> of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately
> >> subverts it"[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to
> >> complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed... the only reason I mention "independent" is that even
> >>> a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded
> >>> to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure
> >>> that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless
> >>> claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip
> >>> that in the bud.
> >>
> >> I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any
> >> corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen.
> >> The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule-
> >> based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they
> >> are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so.
> >
> > Is there something useful to be said here? If so, what is it?
> > Non-sequitur?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that, honestly (and welcome to the
> list by the way, perhaps you should introduce yourself).
>
> But you really need to get that mailer of yours sorted out, it keeps
> top-posting a huge signature block each time you reply.

Yes, I am now properly chastised. Well, so be it. Blame it on my
newbie-ness.
With respect to my introduction, I think you must have been off making
very
professional photographs and did not notice my post[1]

I'm also a passionate photographer, and welcome an opportunity to share
with you.
Peace.

/don

> S.
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
>
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser 

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 9 Jun 2011, at 02:26, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> With respect to my introduction, I think you must have been off making
> very  professional photographs and did not notice my post[1]

Was that cross-posted here too?  I didn't see it in my TDF mailbox when I looked (which may just be down to the deluge of mail that's arisen from this debacle).

>
> I'm also a passionate photographer, and welcome an opportunity to share
> with you.
> Peace.

Nice :-) Wondering if I need a new camera actually, it's been a while.

S.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

NoOp NoOp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
On 06/08/2011 08:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:04 PM, NoOp wrote:
>
>> Repeat.
>>
>> On 06/06/2011 06:05 PM, NoOp wrote:
>>> On 06/04/2011 05:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Whether OOo lives or dies in Apache, Oracle has made it abundantly
>>>> clear that this is it... This is one promise I fully expect Oracle
>>>> will keep :/
>>>
>>> Interesting...
>>>
>>> Could you clarify that statement?
>>>
>>> 1. @ASF: What happens to OOo if ASF votes *not* to accept the OOo
>>> project into the incubator? And it that is the case, what happens to the
>>> OOo software that has been granted to the ASF by Oracle?
>> ...
>>
>> Was it your intention to pop into this list with:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I have also just subscribed to both discuss@ and steering-discuss@
>>> in hopes that if there are questions here regarding OOo, LOo, TDF
>>> and the ASF, I can respond. I'm also here to also ask that if
>>> you feel more comfortable emailing me directly, that is fine
>>> as well.
>>
>> and no longer respond to questions?
>>
>> The questions are, IMO, valid and are important - both for OOo and TDF/LO.
>
> Sorry I did not reply to this email in a timely manner... although I
> have replied to others, I did not have time to answer this one;
> I have been traveling and am at a conference and so sincere
> apologies for taking 2 days to reply.
...
Thanks & appreciate the informative reply.




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Chaosun Chaosun
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Allen Pulsifer
当前OOo的现状。主要从ASF和IBM角度来看。

----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Pulsifer" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 10:06 AM
Subject: [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


> Greetings All,
>
> Some of you will remember me as a long time member of the OpenOffice.org
> community.  In fact, back in the day, it was sometimes just myself and
> Michael Meeks who were openly complaining on the OOo mailing list about
> Sun's handling of the "community" :-)
>
> I'm writing today about what is going on over at the Apache project.  When I
> heard Oracle was donating the OpenOffice code to the Apache project, I
> headed over there to see what was going on.  I offer this brief report to
> bring everyone up to speed:
>
> - According to officers of the Apache Software Foundation, Oracle donated
> OpenOffice to the ASF by executing the ASF's standard copyright grant.  This
> grant allows the ASF to release the OpenOffice code under the Apache
> License.
>
> - The ASF however has a process to accept a project.  The OpenOffice project
> is now in the proposal stage.  If accepted, it will join the Apache
> Incubator and become a "podling", which is basically a
> project-in-development.  During the podling stage, the project would be
> expected to complete the steps needed to become a full ASF project.  Among
> other requirements, the podling project has to review the copyright history
> of all code to ensure it has a clean "title" and is or can be licensed under
> the Apache License.  If it completes that process, it then becomes a full
> Apache project.  See
> https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/incubation_at_apache_what_s
>
> - While the code donation was made by Oracle, the primary champion in the
> effort to get the code accepted as is Apache Project is IBM.  Let's have no
> illusions or delusions about this.  IBM has a self-interested motive in
> championing this project.  Basically, IBM would like to setup a community
> where both it and other contributors make contributions under the Apache
> License, and then IBM would take some or all of those contributions and use
> them in its proprietary products which includes for example IBM Lotus
> Symphony.  The Apache License specifically allows this.  In fact, the Apache
> License allows anyone to take the code and use it in their own project, open
> source or closed source.  In the Apache world, that is considered a feature
> not a bug.  The ASF would like to see as many people using the code as
> possible, and for that reason, their license is as liberal as possible,
> allowing anyone to use the code.  That is exactly the reason that IBM is
> championing this as an Apache Project, rather than a LGPL project.
>
> And that brings me (almost) to the point of this email.  Any code
> contributed to the Apache OpenOffice project could be used by anyone,
> including The Document Foundation, which can take the code, integrate it
> into LibreOffice, and release it under the LGPL.  Sounds like a good deal,
> huh?
>
> Here's the rub.  IBM, as I mentioned, is doing this for self-interested
> reasons.  I would like to propose the members of LibreOffice community get
> involved in this for similarly self-interested reasons.
>
> I understand there are some bad feelings toward IBM.  Basically, there is
> the perception that IBM has been taking OpenOffice code all of these years
> and contributing little back to the OpenOffice community.  That is probably
> true.  As far as I can see, IBM has at least been taking much more than it
> has given back.  I'm not sure that can continue though, because as the
> champion of the proposed Apache OpenOffice project, IBM is going to have to
> contribute.
>
> So you might say though, why not just sit back, let IBM make contributions
> to Apache OpenOffice, and then we'll just cherry pick what we want for
> LibreOffice.  Well that would certainly work, but I don't think it would
> work as well as getting involved.
>
> There is also another player in this, and that is the Apache Software
> Foundation.  The ASF is an honorable organization with a long track record
> in open source and they are dedicated to fostering a community.  In the ASF,
> anyone can contribute.  Contributions and participation are made by
> individuals, not by or on behalf of companies or organizations.  The
> community determines the direction of the project.  Membership in the
> community is based on merit, which is measured not just by code
> contributions, but by anything that supports the project, which could also
> include documentation, testing, bug reports, etc.
>
> So while the LibreOffice could just sit back and cherry-pick the project, if
> its members get involved, they can help determine the direction of the
> project, ensuring that the project direction and design decision are
> compatible with LibreOffice and have the maximum value to LibreOffice.  The
> ASF has no problems with this--in fact, they encourage it.  Just as IBM is
> getting involved in an Apache OpenOffice project because they want to use
> the code in their products, the ASF will welcome TDF members getting
> involved for the same self-interested reason, to use the code in
> LibreOffice.
>
> Critically, at this stage in the process, everyone has a "free pass" to get
> involved.  Normally, once the project is up and running, you would have to
> demonstrate your merit before you can join the project.  But for the next
> few days, while the project is in the proposal stage, the gates are wide
> open--anyone can join as an initial member.
>
> So here is my suggestion: I propose the everyone here head over to the
> Apache Incubator and join the proposal as an initial member.  To do that,
> simply:
>
> 1. Go to http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal
> 2. Click "Login" at the top.
> 3. Follow the directions to create an account.
> 4. After your account is setup, go back to
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal and if you still see
> "Login" at the top of the page, click on it and login using the account you
> just created.
> 5. Go back to http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal and click
> "Edit (GUI)".
> 6. Scroll down to the "Initial Committers" table, right-click on the last
> row, select Row -> Insert After, then add you name to the table.  Note: the
> "Initial Committers" are the initial project members.  While "Committers"
> imply code contributors, it is not just limited to that--anyone can be a
> committer.
> 7. In the Comment field at the bottom of the page (below the text editor),
> enter "added self to Initial Committers", then click "Save Changes" above
> the text editor.
> 8. Check the page to make sure your name appears.
>
> That's it.  It does not obligate you to make any code contributions, but it
> will get you in on the ground floor and allow you to participate in the
> direction of the project.  I just did it myself.
>
> Some of you may have noticed that Greg Stein, a member of the Apache
> Software Foundation Board of Directors has joined this list and offered to
> answer any questions.  Please feel free to ask him about anything that is on
> your mind.  He would be a better person to answer, since I'm new to all this
> Apache stuff myself :-)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Allen
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Chaosun Chaosun
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Hi All,

I am terriblely sorry regarding my last email which should be private. Please ignore it. And forgive me!

Best
Chao


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chaosun" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


> 当前OOo的现状。主要从ASF和IBM角度来看。
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Allen Pulsifer" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 10:06 AM
> Subject: [tdf-discuss] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
>
>
>> Greetings All,
>>
>> Some of you will remember me as a long time member of the OpenOffice.org
>> community.  In fact, back in the day, it was sometimes just myself and
>> Michael Meeks who were openly complaining on the OOo mailing list about
>> Sun's handling of the "community" :-)
>>
>> I'm writing today about what is going on over at the Apache project.  When I
>> heard Oracle was donating the OpenOffice code to the Apache project, I
>> headed over there to see what was going on.  I offer this brief report to
>> bring everyone up to speed:
>>
>> - According to officers of the Apache Software Foundation, Oracle donated
>> OpenOffice to the ASF by executing the ASF's standard copyright grant.  This
>> grant allows the ASF to release the OpenOffice code under the Apache
>> License.
>>
>> - The ASF however has a process to accept a project.  The OpenOffice project
>> is now in the proposal stage.  If accepted, it will join the Apache
>> Incubator and become a "podling", which is basically a
>> project-in-development.  During the podling stage, the project would be
>> expected to complete the steps needed to become a full ASF project.  Among
>> other requirements, the podling project has to review the copyright history
>> of all code to ensure it has a clean "title" and is or can be licensed under
>> the Apache License.  If it completes that process, it then becomes a full
>> Apache project.  See
>> https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/incubation_at_apache_what_s
>>
>> - While the code donation was made by Oracle, the primary champion in the
>> effort to get the code accepted as is Apache Project is IBM.  Let's have no
>> illusions or delusions about this.  IBM has a self-interested motive in
>> championing this project.  Basically, IBM would like to setup a community
>> where both it and other contributors make contributions under the Apache
>> License, and then IBM would take some or all of those contributions and use
>> them in its proprietary products which includes for example IBM Lotus
>> Symphony.  The Apache License specifically allows this.  In fact, the Apache
>> License allows anyone to take the code and use it in their own project, open
>> source or closed source.  In the Apache world, that is considered a feature
>> not a bug.  The ASF would like to see as many people using the code as
>> possible, and for that reason, their license is as liberal as possible,
>> allowing anyone to use the code.  That is exactly the reason that IBM is
>> championing this as an Apache Project, rather than a LGPL project.
>>
>> And that brings me (almost) to the point of this email.  Any code
>> contributed to the Apache OpenOffice project could be used by anyone,
>> including The Document Foundation, which can take the code, integrate it
>> into LibreOffice, and release it under the LGPL.  Sounds like a good deal,
>> huh?
>>
>> Here's the rub.  IBM, as I mentioned, is doing this for self-interested
>> reasons.  I would like to propose the members of LibreOffice community get
>> involved in this for similarly self-interested reasons.
>>
>> I understand there are some bad feelings toward IBM.  Basically, there is
>> the perception that IBM has been taking OpenOffice code all of these years
>> and contributing little back to the OpenOffice community.  That is probably
>> true.  As far as I can see, IBM has at least been taking much more than it
>> has given back.  I'm not sure that can continue though, because as the
>> champion of the proposed Apache OpenOffice project, IBM is going to have to
>> contribute.
>>
>> So you might say though, why not just sit back, let IBM make contributions
>> to Apache OpenOffice, and then we'll just cherry pick what we want for
>> LibreOffice.  Well that would certainly work, but I don't think it would
>> work as well as getting involved.
>>
>> There is also another player in this, and that is the Apache Software
>> Foundation.  The ASF is an honorable organization with a long track record
>> in open source and they are dedicated to fostering a community.  In the ASF,
>> anyone can contribute.  Contributions and participation are made by
>> individuals, not by or on behalf of companies or organizations.  The
>> community determines the direction of the project.  Membership in the
>> community is based on merit, which is measured not just by code
>> contributions, but by anything that supports the project, which could also
>> include documentation, testing, bug reports, etc.
>>
>> So while the LibreOffice could just sit back and cherry-pick the project, if
>> its members get involved, they can help determine the direction of the
>> project, ensuring that the project direction and design decision are
>> compatible with LibreOffice and have the maximum value to LibreOffice.  The
>> ASF has no problems with this--in fact, they encourage it.  Just as IBM is
>> getting involved in an Apache OpenOffice project because they want to use
>> the code in their products, the ASF will welcome TDF members getting
>> involved for the same self-interested reason, to use the code in
>> LibreOffice.
>>
>> Critically, at this stage in the process, everyone has a "free pass" to get
>> involved.  Normally, once the project is up and running, you would have to
>> demonstrate your merit before you can join the project.  But for the next
>> few days, while the project is in the proposal stage, the gates are wide
>> open--anyone can join as an initial member.
>>
>> So here is my suggestion: I propose the everyone here head over to the
>> Apache Incubator and join the proposal as an initial member.  To do that,
>> simply:
>>
>> 1. Go to http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal
>> 2. Click "Login" at the top.
>> 3. Follow the directions to create an account.
>> 4. After your account is setup, go back to
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal and if you still see
>> "Login" at the top of the page, click on it and login using the account you
>> just created.
>> 5. Go back to http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal and click
>> "Edit (GUI)".
>> 6. Scroll down to the "Initial Committers" table, right-click on the last
>> row, select Row -> Insert After, then add you name to the table.  Note: the
>> "Initial Committers" are the initial project members.  While "Committers"
>> imply code contributors, it is not just limited to that--anyone can be a
>> committer.
>> 7. In the Comment field at the bottom of the page (below the text editor),
>> enter "added self to Initial Committers", then click "Save Changes" above
>> the text editor.
>> 8. Check the page to make sure your name appears.
>>
>> That's it.  It does not obligate you to make any code contributions, but it
>> will get you in on the ground floor and allow you to participate in the
>> direction of the project.  I just did it myself.
>>
>> Some of you may have noticed that Greg Stein, a member of the Apache
>> Software Foundation Board of Directors has joined this list and offered to
>> answer any questions.  Please feel free to ask him about anything that is on
>> your mind.  He would be a better person to answer, since I'm new to all this
>> Apache stuff myself :-)
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Allen
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
>> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
>> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
mhenriday mhenriday
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
2011/6/8 Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]>

>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:36 PM, M Henri Day wrote:
>
> > left out. As I see it, the upshot of the matter is that TDF would best be
> > advised to devote its limited resources to improving LibreOffice, rather
> > than to working to please the lawyerly mind....
> >
>
> I would suggest, as an outsider, that TDF continue the lawyerly
> efforts in finalizing its foundation, non-profit, governance,
> models. There is nothing worse, or more dangerous, than an
> "almost created" foundation. ;)
>

Good point, Jim ! I amend my comment to read as follows : As I see it, the
upshot of the matter is that TDF, after completing the procedure necessary
for establishing itself as a non-profit foundation according to the laws and
regulations governing such in the country (Germany) in which it is
registered, would best be advised to devote its limited resources to
improving LibreOffice, rather than to working to please the lawyerly mind
and complying with all the regulations required to accept a possible
«donation» from a legal entity registered in the United States.....

Hope the above will suffice !...

Henri

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Next » 1 ... 45678 « Prev